Originally Posted by Deuce
Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...
And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.
I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.
Originally Posted by AndrewD
Just because commentators (or anyone) do it, doesn't make it anything other than sloppy.
What exactly is your rationale for calling his usage "wrong"? Who do you think makes the "official" meaning of the term "Grand Slam"?
This is pedantic to the extreme. The commentators are using the same term the ATP uses. http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/tournaments/
The four tournaments are referred to as the "Grand Slam Events" - and the OP used the term "Grand Slam Title". When they talk about Federer, they say he "reached all four Grand Slam finals". You're telling us we cannot use the terms that the ATP uses in describing tournaments??
The term "Grand Slam" is used interchangeably to refer to one tournament or all four - the context makes it obvious which is being referred to. The concept of a single word meaning two things certainly isn't a new one...