Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Lipper: Despite An Uptick In Equities; Fund Investors Remain Risk Adverse
@davidmoran re. risk-averse. Yup, I almost threw that one into the pot-of-errors last night. Based on what he wrote, I'm pretty sure Mr. Roseen intended "risk-averse." However, I wasn't sure and consulted Merriam Webster. Well, let several million Millenials misuse a word, and infect several million of the rest of us, and before you know it the Dictionary People swoop in and add a definition and words start to morph into each other. As things currently stand with "adverse" and "averse," it looks to me that Tom Roseen could make the case he did not error in his choice of "adverse" (though it still would require hyphenation). Go figure. p.s. my submission for Grammatical Perversion of the Week goes to a blog written by Chris Dietrich of Barron's, whose opening sentence contained so many problems as to be unintelligible (most notable problem: it was a simple sentence that contained two verbs, right next to each other). I hope that isn't a trend that catches fire.
I emailed Roseen and he was altogether dismayed at Reuters's bad work and will have the hed fixed x 3.
Yes, someday adverse may join averse, alas, as will loathe for loath, and miniscule for minuscule, and all the rest.
There is indeed always something to be said for descriptive rather than solely prescriptive dictionary-making, but this ain't it.
Noah W lobbied to have (and perhaps temporarily succeeded in having) aks for ask included in one of his early editions, for example --- I mean, people widely say it, therefore....
Comments
Derf
p.s. my submission for Grammatical Perversion of the Week goes to a blog written by Chris Dietrich of Barron's, whose opening sentence contained so many problems as to be unintelligible (most notable problem: it was a simple sentence that contained two verbs, right next to each other). I hope that isn't a trend that catches fire.
REgards,
Ted
Yes, someday adverse may join averse, alas, as will loathe for loath, and miniscule for minuscule, and all the rest.
There is indeed always something to be said for descriptive rather than solely prescriptive dictionary-making, but this ain't it.
Noah W lobbied to have (and perhaps temporarily succeeded in having) aks for ask included in one of his early editions, for example --- I mean, people widely say it, therefore....