I’ve always been a proud (and yes, like we all are, slightly snobbish) grammar geek. I’m proud to know the difference between a jail and a prison, that to evacuate hundreds of people would be reeeeeally messy, and that they actually feel “nauseated,” not “nauseous” by my grammar snobbish behaviour.

But one definition that has always eluded me is the difference between “more than” and “over.”

My gut feeling tells me that you use “over” when it’s in reference to physical measurement properties (over six storeys high, over eight feet tall, etc.) and use “more than” for non-physical references like (more than 600 people, or more than $400,000, etc.)

Anyone want to weigh in with their understanding of the right way to use these two?

Last week, we explored “pre-tape”

This week’s CBC-phrase (a phrase or word which is totally overused at the CBC) is:

“moving forward”
or
“going forward”

In all cases, either of these phrases are redundant. No, really.

Next time you hear someone tack this phrase onto the end of a sentence, think about it and you’ll realize you don’t even need to say it. It’s one of those CorpSpeak phrases that are redundant, but people believe they’ll sound smart if they add it.

I once attended a CBC meeting in which someone asked this question:

“So, with respect to the programming, should we
redevelop, moving forward, or connect
on the platform re: development priorities?”    

(Seriously. I have it on tape.)

My answer was: “Uh… what exactly are you asking?”

I’m not sure if the Niagara Institute, to which many CBC executives are sent, has its own dictionary, but this one is silly.

Then again, that’s just what I think. What do you think?

There’s a great discussion underway at CBC Radio, bouncing around from email box to email box, about whether the word “pre-tape” is redundant or not. At the Corp, people use “pre-tape” to mean they’ll record something now for airing later.

Which led a producer from As It Happens to blast an email out saying:

Could we please add “pre-tape” to the list of redundancies! Please! We don’t “pre-tape” or “pre-record” anything. We tape or record.

Host Anna Maria Tremonti weighed in, arguing for the defence:

Given that this is a network that operates in 5 time zones, some interviews are taped, then taped again as the programs roll across the country. Ergo, they are pre-taped before they are taped again.

The discussion continued:

exactly - programs are recorded live, with some elements of them having been pre recorded - or recorded before the recording.

———–

Right. I appreciate that “pre-tape” or “pre-record” is a bit of cherished broadcasting jargon, but it is grammatical nonsense. “Pre-record/tape” is not a verb. Period. It must modify something, i.e. a “pre-tape interview” being a discussion one has with an interviewee prior to hitting the record button. The very act of recording something nullifies the “pre.” So, we record interviews prior to broadcasting them, and then we also record them as they are being broadcast. It may sound clunky or inconvenient, but correct grammar is sometimes like that. At CBC, we love to rail against corporate jargon — but get remarkably sensitive when it comes to our own. “Pre-tape”, or “pre-record” is pure jargon.

———–

I have a sneaking suspicion that the phrase originated as a “pre-show taping”. We just shortened it to “pre-tape”. That may help explain why it doesn’t seem redundant to some folks.

Where do you stand on pre-tape as a word? (Now, if we could only excise “onpassing” from the CBC’s vernacular.)