Wonderings and Googlings* (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

*(see late addendum below)

The reason is threefold = 419 hits
The reasons are threefold = 597 hits

I've mostly heard people use that plural one. But today I came across the "the reason is threefold" (Yes, it's another thrilling day of copy editing).

Dictionaries don't address this issue directly. But, the way I read their definitions, it seems to make more sense to use it with the singular.

Webster's New World:

threefold adj. 1. having three parts. 2. having three times as much or as
many. adv. three times as much or as many.

Dictionary.com offers examples:

a threefold program
a threefold return on an investment

So does Webster's Revised Unabridged (via Dictionary.com)

A threefold cord is not quickly broken. -- Eccl. iv. 12

Seems to me that when someone says, "The reasons are threefold," they're using "threefold" as a synonym for "three." (Answer me these questions three.) But none of the dictionaries I checked treats them as synonyms.

* Addendum:

I hadn't had much time to look at the news until late in the day, but this is for those of you who were interested in the politics of yesterday's post: The Center for Responsive Politics has released a report on how much money congress members got from banking/financial company donations in the years before a 1999 vote on removing some regulations. As also reported in the Los Angeles Times, the report demonstrates a clear correlation: Reps who got the most money from this industry were pretty much the same people who voted yes on the deregulation measure. Here's the link, where you'll also find a full list of names and dollar amounts: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/money-and-votes-aligned-in-con.html

The Times also reported today the stuff that was on the Wall Street Journal's website yesterday about lobbying by banks, etc. to capitalize on the bailout plan.

If I Could Edit All the World … (Wherein I react to the financial crisis with a stunning display of powerlessness in the form of unsolicited editing)

Copy editors don’t just catch missing hyphens. We’re also responsible for assuring clarity, asking questions like: Does this make sense? Did the writer connect the dots? Are we speaking to the reader at his own level, or are we talking down to him or talking over his head? Is there missing information? Is this piece clear, logical, and flowing?

When we see overarching problems, we type notes right in the story document (OFTEN IN OBNOXIOUS ALL CAPS that I’ll replace here in red) then send it right back to the reporter to fix.

Normally, I get paid for this. (Up until my 2 p.m. sugar crash, I’m pretty good at it). But today I’m working pro bono.

Here’s the full text of a segment from Friday’s NBC Nightly News broadcast. The purpose of the piece is to explain how the current financial crisis came about.
(If you want to see it live or check my typing, it’s here.) After this comes the same story, but this time with the notes I would have included had this come across my desk for editing.

* * *

This segment, after the introduction by Brian Williams, is pre-recorded and relies primarily on B-roll and graphics for its visuals, with those visuals narrated by reporter Dylan Ratigan. A few sentences before the end, we cut to visual of Ratigan in the studio.

(Open on Brian Williams)

Williams (on camera): The swiftness and the intensity of this week’s events have caught even many financial experts by surprise, so we asked CNBC’s Dylan Ratigan to step back, take a look at how we got here in the first place.

Ratigan (narrating over graphics and B-roll): This financial crisis started with the availability of cheap credit. In the old days, to get a mortgage, a buyer would go to the bank, show proof of an income, provide a substantial down payment and become a homeowner. In the new model, banks were encouraged and even got fees to loan money to homebuyers with poor credit and no money down. Making things worse, Wall Street got into the game …

(Graphic shows a street sign of “Wall Street” Under it are graphics of street signs with the names “Lehman Brothers,” “Bear Stearns” and “AIG” written on them)

… agreeing to insure the banks in case homeowners didn’t pay their home loans. But the trouble is Wall Street didn’t keep enough money in reserves—one dollar for every 30 lent out. And when homeowners began defaulting, Wall Street couldn’t keep up, bringing the American Financial system to the brink. So who’s to blame? In a sense, we all are. From the small mom and pop that took advantage of the low minimum payment on their credit cards to grow their business to trillion-dollar institutions. If you thought you could reap the rewards of easy credit without the consequences, this is the proof that you can’t.

Leaving the U.S. government to decide that it had to step in and assume the mortgages. Why? So American banks could function again and continue lending you money. Dylan Ratigan. CNBC.

* * *
(Same story with my “edits” for the reporter …)

Ratigan: This financial crisis started with the availability of cheap credit. In the old days, to get a mortgage, a buyer would go to the bank, show proof of an income, provide a substantial down payment and become a homeowner. In the new model(You reference the “new model” as if viewers are already fully familiar with it. They aren’t. Mention when and how this “new model” came into existence.), banks were encouraged and even got fees to loan money to homebuyers with poor credit and no money down (Classic example of a bad passive. “Encouraged” by whom?). Making things worse, Wall Street (Be more specific. What types of players on Wall Street? Everyone knows AIG is an insurer, but our graphic suggests you’re saying that brokerage houses also suddenly began insuring the banks. Is that true?) got into the game …

(Graphic shows “Wall St.” street sign with “Lehman Brothers,” “Bear Stearns” and “AIG” under it)

… agreeing to insure the banks in case homeowners didn’t pay their home loans (When did they “get into the game”? Wasn’t AIG always in that game? What, exactly, had changed?) But the trouble is Wall Street didn’t keep enough money in reserves: One dollar for every 30 lent out (Is that legal? Aren’t insurers subject to regulation designed specifically to ensure they can cover losses?). And when homeowners began defaulting (Quantify. Like, “Homeowners began defaulting to the tune of $200 billion in two years.”) Wall Street couldn’t keep up, bringing the American financial system to the brink (“Bringing to the brink” is a very vague verb phrase. Are any more specific ones available?).

(Cut to: Ratigan in studio)

So who’s to blame? In a sense, we all are. From the small mom and pop that took advantage of the low minimum payment on their credit cards (You have utterly failed to demonstrate how taking advantage of a low minimum payment on a credit card factored into a process set in motion by mortgage defaults) to grow their business, to trillion-dollar institutions (You say, “We all are,” but your “from … to” spectrum includes only businesses. Are non-business-owning individuals also to blame?). If you thought you could reap the rewards of easy credit without the consequences, this is the proof that you can’t. (Why are you editorializing instead of explaining? It’s all the more troubling because you’ve failed to explain the stuff on which you’re basing your editorial conclusion.)

Leaving (Classic example of a bad dangler. What, exactly, is “leaving” the U.S. government to decide this? The proof that the viewer can’t reap the rewards of easy credit? Or just his fondness of easy credit? You’re implying a causality but you're stopping short of actually saying or showing it. Make clear or delete.) the U.S. government to decide that it had to step in and assume the mortgages. Why? So American banks could function again and continue lending you money (Viewers aren’t going to buy that. To them, this isn’t just about whether someone will loan them money. It’s about their holdings, the value of their securities, and the very real question of whether there’s going to be a run on the bank that’s holding their savings. Relate this to all viewers -- not just the guy whose only concern is whether he can finance a new Xterra.) Dylan Ratigan. CNBC.

(Dylan: Did we bite off more than we could chew by asking you to explain a highly complex chain of events in just over 200 words? How can we make this whole piece manageable and actually helpful? We can’t run it as-is.)