In terms of

As a lapsed applied linguist, I'm well aware of the inexorable processes of linguistic change, and for the most part it is interesting and even amusing to observe change in progress. What is less tolerable, from a personal viewpoint, is the way language is used to bamboozle, fool, and deceive. Nothing new in this, of course, and the uses to which language is put reflects the ideological changes which affect public discourse.

In the 1990s, 'deliver' seemed to cross the boundary from the terminology of project management to the lexicon of mangerialism, and by the end of the 1990s, no politicians could open their mouths without uttering 'deliver' in its various manifestations. There was even a Delivery Unit at the heart of the Blair government at No. 10 Downing Street, for heaven's sake. Now 'deliver' has replaced more precise and more appropriate terms like 'apply' (policies), 'provide' (benefits), 'fulfil' (promises), 'implement' (policies, plans) and so on. Policies, we are told, are 'delivered', even goals are 'delivered' and so are promises (which are, of course, also broken).

The latest blight on the verbal landscape is the phrase: 'in terms of' (ITO). Today, I read on the website of Car magazine, a report which contained the following especially gross example of ITO:

‘It will not only be the most prestigious SUV on sale, but also the fastest in terms of top speed, and the most expensive in terms of price,’ Dr Dürheimer told CAR (referring to the latest bling Bentley for the ultra rich).

Unfortunately, it's too late to ban 'in terms of' (ITO). Yes, I know that like 'less' (when it should be' fewer') and 'deliver' and numerous other examples, banning is a battle that one can only lose. ITO has infected most notably spoken discourse. It's impossible to listen to the radio or TV nowadays without hearing ITO uttered by presenters, interviewers and interviewees. Basically, it marks what I think in past times would have been called the rheme. (I'm probably wrong about the term, but what I'm referring to is the new information to follow the theme, which in the above would be 'it'.) Often, ITO replaces a simple preposition, e.g.

It has a knock on effect in terms of how much you have to pay….
It has a knock on how much you have to pay….

there had to be compromises in terms of quality to meet the target.
there had to be compromises in quality to meet the target.

Only occasionally is ITO used more or less correctly:

Andrew Boodworth of the British Geological Survey reckons that aggregates are still the country's biggest primary industry -- in terms of weight, not value. Economist, February 25th, 2012, p. 31 .

Dr Dürheimer is clearly a very competent speaker of English, even though it presumably is not his native language. Maybe when a non native English speaker can use the latest cliché in a way that would do honour to the boilerplate of any native English speaking corporate spokesperson, it really is time to admit defeat!