Talk:Pleonasm/Archive 1

Initial Discussion

You ought to check out your examples. Some of them are wrong, from "simplifying" something that actually has a level of meaning that isn't in the simpler version. Yes, when that happens the more complex version doesn't make itself clear and should be clarified - but the simpler variant is not the same, so the example is wrong. PML.

I concur. For many of these examples, the simplified version is indeed simpler, but not necessarily synonymous. Pleonasm should refer to words that can be removed to retain exactly the same sense.

No, I disagree. Not the same sense, the same necessary sense. There is very rarely (if ever) an important difference of meaning between "We're going to ask local people about heavy traffic" and "We intend to hold a consultation exercise with members of the local community in terms of issues around traffic congestion."

But there might be a significant difference in meaning, and such a sentence does not constitute an unambiguous pleonasm.

If removing a word changes the focus or sense of a phrase at all, it's not really a pleonasm. Also, pleonasm usually refers to formations that are redundant yet grammatical. Ungrammatical insertion of words is just an error. I suggest putting in some uncontroversial examples from a variety of languages.

For example:

• In the Spanish sentence "Yo tengo el dinero" ("I have the money"), the word 'yo' is pleonastic. Removing it does not change the meaning of the sentence in any way. (If 'yo' is emphasized, it changes the sense of the sentence to focus on 'I').
• In the French sentence "Je ne parle pas français" ("I don't speak French") the word "ne" is pleonastic: removing it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence in any way.

No, I'd say it's redundant, not pleonastic, but redundancy is a natural (and essential) part of language. Pleonasm isn't.

I think we are defining pleonasm as a linguistic form of redundancy. In these cases, both the form with and without the 'extra' word are grammatically acceptable in the language. The 'yo' and 'ne' are pleonasms because they don't do anything to affect the meaning. The meaning of both sentences is identical in every way. My linguistics professors always called words like that 'pleonastic'. How exactly are they not pleonasms?

On the other hand, many of the examples in the article are problematic:

• "I additionally also think that..." is not grammatical

No, it is grammatical. Grammar isn't generally concerned with meaning of words: that's semantics.

I would have to disagree. It is a rule of grammar that restricts what kinds of adverbs can occur adjacently. Consider "I hopefully very think that...". Is that also grammatical? Are you saying that this kind of 'semantic rule' is not part of the grammar of English?

• "the sound of the loud music" and "the loud music" are not the same.
• "drown out" and "drown" are not the same.
• "Burglarization" and "burglary" are both one word, one is just longer than the other.
• "in terms of" is generally used to relate one idea to another by analogy: "This new theory explains economic growth in terms of evolutionary biology"

Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be pleonastic in other contexts.

I think, however, that an encyclopedia entry on pleonasm should contain only examples that are unambiguously pleonastic

In the example sentence, the usage is grammatical but doesn't make sense. Since pleonasm refers to extra words with the same sense, it can't really apply to constructions that lack sense.

• "democratic process" and "democracy" are not the same. In the example, "democracy" is a better choice, but it's not pleonasm.
• "Members of the X community" is not the same as "Xs". One might argue it is the same as "some Xs" though.
• "issues around traffic congestion" and "traffic congestion" are not the same.

The debatable examples:

• "voting process" might be distinct from "voting exercise" or "voting activity".
• I agree "hold a consultation exercise with" is needlessly wordy, but is it really synonymous with "consult" (as a verb)?
• Is "a ... testing regime" really the same as "... tests"?
• The noun "postmortem" can be defined as "postmortem examination" and is thus pleonastic, but the word examination might be important to distinguish from something else that occurred after the death.
• "rescue operation" might refer to logistics behind a "rescue" but not the rescue itself.
• a "significant landmark" might be to distinguish from an "insignificant landmark".

The things that truly are pleonasm:

• "head up" and "head" are synonymous (as verbs), so the 'up' is pleonastic.

• • Can you give a sentence example? "We head up the hill" and "We head the hill" don't mean the same thing. Is there another way this is used as a verb? - Omegatron 20:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think I raised this later on this page. I decided that it was probably a use like "head up a committee." In my view, that's likely an idiom, but wouldn't be a redundancy.--NathanHawking 07:01, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

• "police force" and "police" are synonymous (as nouns), so the 'force' is pleonastic.

--Nohat 18:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of whether a long and short sentence or phrase are exactly synonymous under close analysis but whether the intended sense is the same. The longer examples I gave are not used by people who want to inform and be precise, they're used by people who want to impress and obfuscate (politicians etc). Jacquerie27 09:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I also think that several of the long examples are just plain wrong. And I come from a culture where pleonasms are considered to be very bad. Loisel 03:35 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's an example offender:

• The council will hold a consultation exercise with members of the local community into issues around traffic congestion.

• The council will consult local people about traffic congestion. (Or simply: The council will ask local people about heavy traffic.)

The first phrase does not need "exercise" and "local" and "into issues around traffic congestion" is poor style. It is possible that "exercise" is used to suggest that the consultation won't be "real" and will only be used to train someone (the councilors maybe?) but it is probably a pleonasm. However, the alternatives fail to convey the following information:

• The council will actually have sort sort of formal reunion where the local community will be able to come. Indeed, the words "hold a consultation ... with members of the local community" sounds a lot more like there's going to be a town hall meeting than "consult local people."
• The longer phrase seems to suggest that issues connected to traffic congestion, and not only the traffic problem, will be discussed.

In addition, the proposed alternatives do not maintain the same level of english, which can only serve to confuse pleonasms with good english, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. "Consulting local people" is not the same as "consulting members of the community." In one instance, they're just "guys", while in the other they are participating citizens or something.

I suggest the contentious ones be removed.

Loisel 03:45 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. As I've taken an active part in the debate, I'll leave the removal to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines pleonasm as "the use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense (as in the man he said) : REDUNDANCY" Nohat 04:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

First casualties:

• The voting process is essential in terms of the democratic process.
  • Voting is essential in democracy.

• The council will hold a consultation exercise with members of the local community into issues around traffic congestion.
  • The council will consult local people about traffic congestion. (Or simply: The council will ask local people about heavy traffic.)

• Members of the gay and lesbian community have serious issues around the interpretation of the events surrounding 9/11 by members of the fundamentalist Christian community.
  • Gays and lesbians do not like what some fundamentalist Christians say about 9/11.

• The governor will head up the investigation process.
  • The governor will head the investigation.

• Ministers have created a rigorous new testing regime for the police force.
  • Ministers have created rigorous new tests for the police.

• Post mortem examination
  • Post mortem
  • Autopsy [[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)]
• Rescue operation
  • Rescue

• Significant landmark/milestone
  • Landmark/Milestone

Loisel 23:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

These all seem like examples of logorrhea not redundancy. - Omegatron 21:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Loisel's examples are several months old. I'm not sure they're even in the article. But there are elements of redundancy within many of them. Some logorrhea is indeed redundancy.

OFTEN: rescue entails an operation; police entails a force; post mortem implies an examination; voting entails a process. The first term subsumes the second, one of the definitions of pleonasm.--NathanHawking 07:01, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

---

In informal spoken French, the negator ne is often optional, while pas is obligatory:

1. Je parle français.
   I speak French.
2. Je ne parle pas français.
   I do not speak French.
3. Je parle pas français.
   I do not speak French.
4. Je ne parle français.
   (not grammatically correct)

Here, (2), (3), and (4) show that the word pas is required to negate the meaning of the first sentence, whereas ne is optional.

Actually, "ne" can often be used alone to express a negative meaning; this is a rather formal register, however. Il ne cesse de m'importuner, for example. The above uses a rather unusual meaning of "grammatically correct," and it's difficult to see what relation it has with the rest of the point anyway. - Montréalais

Are you sure that "ne" is optional? Omitting the "do" in English is not so much optional, as it subtly changes the meaning, with variants:

I do not speak French. I speak no French. I speak not French. I speak French not. lysdexia 15:38, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy examples

Most examples listed do not work well for me, as they seem unlikely or incorrect. Perhaps the reason is my ear for American English, so I'd like to discuss it before changing the text. Comments on the current choices:

• ascend up (OK, but climb up would be more likely US use.)
• head up (If we mean to head up a committee, this would come much closer to idiom than redundancy in the US, I believe. One can head a team, but not up a team. To be a genuine redundancy, and not an idiomatic use, the latter would have to stand alone. I understand that the head is "up" at the "top" of a team, but that's very weak to my ear, while it reeks of the same sort of idiom we use when we say "turn out the light.")
• essential necessity (We'd rarely hear this in the US.)
• nonreading illiterates (Ditto.)
• tuna fish (Very common in the US. Even used in Matchstick Men.)
• wet water (When would this be used?)

I posted a list of these in redundancy, including:

Added bonus, dynamic range, end result, free gift, future plans, hot water heater, new beginning, safe haven, past history, plan ahead, preplan, time period.

These are often heard in the US. Do they all work for non-US English speakers? Comments very welcome.--NathanHawking 03:26, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

I put part of this under talk:dynamic range:

Tuna fish is food whereas tuna is a kind. (I would've switched those. I guess the fish is to explain the foreign[-sounding] term.) Future plans are planned plans (sometimes) whereas plans are now. Past history is when whereas history is when or now, after past history. A range may be either dynamic or static, the former making the range whereas the latter is made by the range. You're equivocating "variation"; dynamic is variation, but range is the limiting domain. Boni needn't be additional. Learning new isn't learning old. "new beginning" is not, but "revolution..new beginning" is. I'll admit that "plan ahead" is, and "plan against" would be better. lysdexia 15:38, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed in every instance. But I've argued these at length and will only select the first: Tuna is a fish, period. I can say "I'm having tuna for lunch," as people often do, and everyone knows I'm having fish. To add "fish" is to say nothing more. None of your other arguments have any more merit than this one.--NathanHawking 01:21, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I take issue with the notion that "dynamic range" as used in the example here is redundant terminology. It has a specific meaning in electrical engineering - specifically it is defined as the ratio of signal strength to noise level, expressed in decibels (dB). A microphone with 30 dB worth of signal range and 3 dB noise level has a dynamic range of 10 dB. A noisier version of the microphone with the same 30 dB of signal range and 6 dB of noise has a smaller dynamic range, that is, 5 dB. Admittedly, at first glance the phrase does sound redundant

You should trust your ear. -NH

...but this is a poor assumption to make about technical terms. Natelipkowitz 13:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No assumption here. I'm quite familiar with the technical uses of the term. That a term is used, even that it is assigned a meaning in glossaries, does not exempt it from redundancy or pleonasm. (You can find "preplan" is glossaries, too.)

The term dynamic range is used a half-dozen ways in photography, each referring to a different quality. The dynamic part of the expression does not tell us which. Only context. Dynamic has no content.

Look up the meaning of dynamic. Look up the meaning of range. What does dynamic say that range does not?--NathanHawking 22:23, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

see also the entry on dynamic range. Natelipkowitz 13:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that I wrote part of that article. Note as well that widespread use does not mean a term's not jargonistic or pleonastic.--NathanHawking 22:23, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

---

well, the point i was making is this: one can talk about the range through which a given device responds, and be strictly correct. one can also talk about the "effective" range of a device by introducing the modifier dynamic, and be talking about something different. i believe this to be a more specific subject than simply "range".

Unfortunately for this explanation, "dynamic" is not synonymous with "effective." The phrase dynamic range (as a liguistic unit), on the other hand, as it's generally defined vis-a-vis microphones, has some correspondency with a certain form of efficacy. If a microphone has a "dynamic range" of 105 dB, it means that at a given frequency the microphone can respond to sound pressure level range of 105 dB, bounded by noise at the low end and a certain distortion level at the high end.

Note that "dynamic" is not a synonym for "sound pressure level" but "dynamic range" IS used as a term for "sound pressure level range" in this context. A subtle distinction, but quite valid, I assure you.

what content does "dynamic" have? well, say i'm given a bucket of balls, and there are 10 different sizes of balls in the bucket. now if i try to sort them out and put all the balls of size 1 here, size 2 over there, and so on, if i can discern between the different sizes of the balls then you could say that my bucket-sorting process has a range of 10. however, say then that i'm sorting the balls, but i've got bad eyes and can't find my glasses. now, to me sizes 1 and 2 look the same, and sizes 3 and 4 look the same, and so on. turns out i've only got a dynamic range of 5.

why don't i just say that i have a range of 5, and drop the word "dynamic"? because my sorting process still works from size 1 to size 10! one thing i could do is redefine what i call "sizes", so that size 1 & 2 are now just size 1, size 3 & 4 are now just size 2, etc. that's reasonable, but as an engineer or scientist you can't just go around redefining systems of units. nobody will be able to communicate with you! so the notion of dynamic range is introduced so that i can still say to my engineer buddies "yes, i can sort size 1 through size 10" while making it clear that i only end up with 5 different buckets of balls.

If you would like a couple of examples of where "dynamic range" might be meaningfully used, in the proper sense of both those words, check my talk page and that for Dynamic range. I give a couple of examples, if you're willing to dig a little.

Your example really amounts to 1) a range of ball sizes, and 2) a range of your visual discrimination. Neither is in any sense "dynamic" in any particular case. The range of ball sizes is 10, while the range of your visual discrimination is 5. Both fixed. If your visual acuity range varied with the time of day, then we might have a true "dynamic range." See the difference?

i never said that a phrase should be exempted because it's in common use. however, adding dynamic as a modifier does change the meaning in a real, physical way. (particularly when it's used as jargon, like in the "microphone" example in the article).

You're being fooled by its familiarity. "Dynamic" adds nothing. The context is disambiguating, not the word. Dynamic simply does not mean all those things.

the other items in the list of pleonasms (like "safe haven") have an adjective whose meaning is subsumed in the noun. "dynamic" and "range" may be somewhat similar concepts, but this specific construction has special meaning. for what it's worth, i agree that it's jargonistic Natelipkowitz 03:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, the only "special meaning" is that which is added by idiom FOR THE ENTIRE PHRASE--that's the way idiom works. A meaning is attached, BY USAGE, which the individual words really don't have. That's not a linguistic or logical crime, as much of language is built this way. Many consider the use of "safe haven" an acceptable term, a fact of traditional language use. But "safe" adds no cognitive content, and neither does "dynamic" in these contexts.--NathanHawking 07:54, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

---

wow. you are making it painfully clear that you don't know what you are talking about. it's one thing to write a wikipedia article about your linguistic pet peeves, but quite another to insist you're right when person after person tell you that you aren't. you say that you are "quite familiar with the technical uses of this term." to then go on and assert that "'Dynamic' adds nothing" shows that you are not as familiar as you think.

That's just a lengthy way of saying "you're wrong." Prove your case with argument—"lots of people disagree" is argumentum ad populum fallacy.

so, let me spell it out. dynamic does not exclusively mean "changing with time".

Never said it did, did I?

you're stuck in a box. dynamic can also mean "changing with amplitude" or "changing with position" or "changing with x" where x is pretty much any physical parameter, including time. in the context of dynamic range, some of these can be applied to certain physical devices.

Hardly stuck. The common conceptual denominator of everything you just said is change or changableness. The what is unimportant and varies with context. Range also implies the capacity for change.

in a digital signal processing system, such as an audio sampling device or a digital camera, the number of distinguishable intensities changes with resolution. an 8-bit camera can only record 256 different intensities, whereas a 16-bit camera can record 32546 (or something like that). while the minimum and maximum detectable intensities are the same (they have the same range), the 16-bit camera can detect a far greater number of distinguishable intensities (it has greater dynamic range). this is not a difference which can be made clear merely by context.

That's where you're mistaken. If I walk up to you and utter the phrase "dynamic range," what am I talking about? You have no idea. None.

So you ask, "Of what?" I respond: I'm talking about photography. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. None. I narrow it down a little: I'm talking about photographing a scene with monochrome film. You still have no idea what I'm talking about. None.

In photography, dynamic range is used to refer to the range of luminance in a scene and the range of sensitivity to light in film—among many other things! Dynamic carries no cognitive content which is not implied by range, and as a linguistic unit, dynamic range depends upon context for disambiguation. My example proves that.

So does yours. You speak of the dynamic range of digital sensors in terms of the shades they can resolve, i.e., 8 or 16 bit, etc. But what about the "dynamic range" of their sensitivity to light? That is a different matter entirely. Don't imagine for a moment that the luminance sensitivity range (also referred to as dynamic range in some contexts) is the same as the luminance discrimination range. It is possible, say, to resolve 32 bits in a scene with a luminance range of 1:1000.

look up "haven" and i'm quite sure you'll find the word "safe" in the definition - in fact it would be difficult to define haven without using "safe" - so you are quite right in saying that "safe haven" is a redundant phrase, a semantic pleonasm. however, there is no "dynamic" anywhere in the many meanings of "range" so adding the word quite must add something to the meaning. whatever could it be? i appreciate that you probably think people ought to use "amplitude range" or something when writing about speakers. if so, you are correct - they should.

If they wish to be more precise. However, I've already stated that dynamic range as a linguistic unit works OK so long as the context is understood. I am not campaigning against the term. I'm simply noting that it is a commonly used redundancy, that dynamic means something which changes without specifying what, a concept also embodied in the meaning of range. It's just that simple.

however, they do not. they use "dynamic range" rather than simply "range" because plain' ol "range" could also refer to "frequency range" or "color range" or whatever else. clearly there is added meaning here.

My argument proves that's not true. In ordinary photography dynamic range can have over six meanings, NONE of which are conveyed by dynamic. Only by context.

listen. i'm not being "fooled" by the phrase's familiarity.

The nature of being fooled is such that we're unaware.

i'm doing what reasonable people do, which is to define a word as it is used, not insist that it only be used as it is (currently) defined.

Sometimes it is quite reasonable to insist that words be used as they are generally understood, but that's not what I'm doing here.

any word in any language is merely a symbol, and any meaning is only attached, as you say, "BY USAGE". "cow" does not mean "cow" a priori. "cow" only means "cow" when people start saying "cow" whilst talking about a particular kind of large mammal. similarly, shrieking on about what's in the dictionary next to "dynamic" does not restrict its meaning. as soon as people start using dynamic to mean something else, it instantly DOES mean something else.

Who's shreiking? True, words and phrases can mean anything we wish them to mean. But that doesn't mean they DO mean anything and everything at any given moment. I disagree with your linguistic analysis: Dynamic does not take on different meanings, depending upon context—dynamic range, as a linguistic unit, does. But that doesn't mean that range doesn't subsume dynamic: it does.

dictionary editors expand their definitions, and so should you.

Natelipkowitz 11:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The dozens of meanings you would attribute to dynamic are not in the dictionary because they do not belong there. Dynamic is not being used here as an adjective. Dynamic range is being used as a noun phrase with a multitude of meanings. I do not deny that, nor am I advocating that such uses are incorrect: I say only that they are: 1) less precise and more dependent on context, and 2) pleonastic when reduced to the meaning of the individual words in an adjective-noun relationship.--NathanHawking 01:21, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

---

ugh. whatever. keep singing your song if you like, but the world will move on without you. meanwhile i think you ought to stop forcing your opinions on the world-at-large. as the first comment in Talk:Dynamic_range correctly points out, you are editorializing. leave it out of Dynamic_range please even if you must keep it here. (i am not saying you should - only that i frankly cannot be arsed any further.) wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedic repository of knowledge, not a forum for any and every conceivable cockeyed rant.

William Safire writes a column in the New York Times magazine with a similar intent: to air his irritation with the way people use english "incorrectly". that -- an editorial space -- is the correct place for your opinion.

How many ways must I state that I'm not calling the use either "correct" or "incorrect" for you to grasp that fact? Not all pleonasms are "incorrect."

that you find the language of dynamic range to be redundant is your personal prerogative, but it does not add any meaningful content to the article. it is at best a distraction, and at worst painfully incorrect misinformation.

You seem to have failed to notice that I wound up agreeing with the person who stated that the article wasn't the proper venue for explaining the linguistics. Weeks ago.

also, for what it's worth, the fact that you've written the same bogus nonsense in other places does not validate your present nonsense. there's another fallacy for ya.

Natelipkowitz 03:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit: ah, having checked dynamic range i see it's already been removed. i take it back - carry on. - Natelipkowitz 03:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, two weeks ago. Consider reading before accusing others of "ranting." And stick to the issues instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and reducing another's argument to "bogus nonsense" when the facts and your logic fail you.--NathanHawking 06:25, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Connotations

yes, you can remove words and keep the same meaning, but each version carries a slightly different connotation with it due to the language used. for instance, "I know that you are coming" sounds slightly more formal than "I know you are coming". This should be mentioned. - Omegatron 14:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought, but I wonder if it's a universal perception. Perhaps some would hear it as more formal, but others might hear it as merely wordy. Hmm.

And how much of that connotation of "formality" comes from a naive association of wordiness with more formal speech? We see the tendency of many writers, especially beginners and the unskilled, to puff up their expository prose with useless words.

In any event, perhaps the pleonasm article is more concerned with basic function than with subtle connotation. Consider the sentence "You should be leaving right now." The word right says nothing that now doesn't already say--you can't get any more nower than now. As such, it would be unnecessary grammatically or lexically, but would nonetheless serve as a function word to connote emphasis on immediacy.

No, "now" has an indeterminate period. lysdexia 15:38, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Now" MAY have an indeterminite period, as when we say "Smallpox used to claims thousands but now we have vaccines." In this case, now MAY refer to an extended and unspecified period. But when we say "I want you to come with me right now," now means at this moment, and right emphasizes immediacy, and is defined as "in the exact ... moment." It's repetition for emphasis, simple as that.--NathanHawking 01:21, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I'd like to give the notion of "extra" words conveying formality more thought, though. Thanks for mentioning it. --NathanHawking 18:48, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Another example is contractions. A sentence with many contractions is considered much more informal than one without, even though they theoretically have the same semantic meaning. - Omegatron 20:19, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I understand your point, and agree that "formality" is indeed a quality that some wording adds to speech. As I writer, I'm aware of the change in voice between narrative that uses contractions and narrative that doesn't.

I'm unsure precisely where we would fit this into language and semantics, but I don't think it goes in pleonasm, as I don't think "formality" touches upon either grammar or conceptual content. I suspect it belongs within the category of idiom--a connotation not carried by the actual meaning of the words. I think that's where I'd consider mentioning this, if it's that important.--NathanHawking 02:15, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Examples of redundancy in English

Reasons why I disagree with the examples provided:

I'll make my responses blue for clarity.--NathanHawking 01:47, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Note the qualifier in the section: "Thus, for normal useage..." These examples are predicated upon a normal context, a normal context being the kind in which millions of people misuse these terms, not a context which has been carefully constructed to make their use plausible. That an expression CAN be used in a nonredundant way does not mean that its normal (mis)use is not redundant.

• As an added bonus, we'll include a potato peeler.

An added bonus would be understood to me an additional bonus on top of existing bonuses. "The Managing Director received a £10,000 perk for handling the smooth merger. As an added bonus, she also received share options worth almost £4000."

[NOTE 1] Yes, one can invent a circumstance in which ___________ is a useable term.

Yet most uses of the term in the US are not of this sort. Does your fabrication of an appropriate use for the term mean that millions don't misuse it? Hardly. I selected these because of their frequent misuse.

• We watched the bear climb up the tree.

Can bears not climb down too? This is the silliest of the lot.

Not silly at all. In ordinary speech, climb implies up. 1 a : to go upward with gradual or continuous progress. See the M-W entries for climb.

If we wrote, as an aphorism, "The bear won't climb down the tree unless if first climbs up the tree," that would be fine. "Climb up" is also tolerable for idiom or colloquial speech. But most editors will delete the "up" as redundant for formal use in a normal context.

• The microphone is virtually distortion-free over a wide dynamic range.

Dynamic indicates it is a frequency range, not a spatial range. The mic might be much more distorted when you hold it over towards the speakers than in the center of the stage.

No, "dynamic" does NOT indicate a frequency range in the context of microphones. When dynamic range is used to refer to distortion, it refers to "the level difference between the level of clipping and the noise level in an audio device," or more precisely, the range of sound levels which can be used without significant distortion.

Yes, dynamic range does not refer to frequency. That would be frequency response. Dynamic range is the range within which an amplitude varies, as discussed in the elaborate talk page. - Omegatron 21:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, dynamic range is used by some to refer to frequency as well, in some technical contexts. (It's a rat-bag catch-all term.) My sample sentence, though, is the way audio people generally use it for sound level range given fixed frequencies and distortion levels.--NathanHawking 21:59, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

• The end result was inflation.

You may have intermediary results. The end result of the US space programme of the 60's was a manned lunar landing, but it neither came at the end nor was the only result of the programme.

See [Note 1] above.

• Receive a free gift with every purchase.

You've obviously not been offered 'gifts' which are not free. :-) Being able to sing is a gift, will a purchase of your product offer me that?

You're saying one absurd use justifies another?

• We discussed our future plans long into the night.

In this context is superflous, but future plans are distinct from current plans. c.f. "The General's future plans would have him avoid such a tactic, but he was not to realise this for another five years."

See [Note 1] above.

• We had to install a new hot water heater.

British usage would omit the word hot, and thus not be redundant. And hey, maybe your hot water is just not hot enough :-D

OK. Common in US, though.

• The revolution marked a new beginning.

There may have been many beginnings. Every chapter in a book starts with a new beginning.

See [Note 1]. Beyond that, a book only has one beginning. Each chapter only has one beginning. A beginning is by nature new. If it's not new, it's not a beginning, is it? How often do we speak of the old beginning?

• They ran for the forest, searching for a safe haven.

"But the haven they found was not safe, as bears lurked up the trees (see above)."

If it's not safe, then it's not a haven. Thus we don't have dangerous havens. Haven: 2 : a place of safety M-W.

Examples unlisted here I concur with. I know it must be quite hard to come up with these, but listing ones which are incorrect is not beneficial to the article. Please comment on this. Nicholas 18:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Every one is correct. Imagining a context in which they MAY be used does not make them nonredundant in normal use. Do a Google search of grammar sites and you can find virtually all of these used as examples by grammarians.--NathanHawking 20:45, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Added section to examples which mentions this issue--that the redundancy of a term is context-dependent. Have a look.--NathanHawking 21:24, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

"Dynamic range" as redundant

The contributor states: "Dynamic range" is not really redundant; dynamic in this case meaning ever-changing).

No, that's simply not the case.

When some speak of the dynamic range of a microphone, they're usually referring to a fixed figure, the ratio of the maximum relatively undistorted sound pressure level to the noise level, usually expressed in dB, something like 105 dB, for example. In this case (and in virtually every other common technical use of dynamic range) dynamic range is a redundant noun phrase (where dynamic is not an adjective). Here, it refers to the relatively undistorted sound level range. Range already implies the ability to change. Dynamic adds nothing. --NathanHawking 21:24, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Dynamic in this example means relating to strength or relating to intensity (from the Greek dyname, and similar to dynamic markings in music), so the dynamic range is the range of intensities (measured in dB) that the microphone can handle. --Delirium 09:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dropping foreign language examples

Early in the history of this article a contributor inserted some non-English examples--Spanish and French. I don't see that they add value to the English-language Wikipedia, so I'm "boldly" removing them. The article is for English speakers, is not about comparative language studies, and describes no principle which requires a reference to a language besides English, so far as I can see. I'd be glad to hear persuasive arguments for their reinstatement, though.--NathanHawking 00:05, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

What a terribly narrow-minded idea it was to remove those examples.

No personal remarks are necessary. Your preference to include the examples is not evidence of broad-mindedness, nor is my belief they are unproductive--counterproductive, even--evidence of narrow-mindedness.-NH

I simply describe behaviors as I see them. I hope only that by pointing it out then in the future you will refrain from such actions by first considering whether they are narrow-minded. Meriam-Webster defines narrow-minded as "lacking in ... breadth of vision", which seemed a perfectly apt descriptor of the rationale for the removal of this information.

Part of mature behavior on Wikipedia is REFRAINING from classifying the other person's behavior in unflattering terms. That you "see it" that way doesn't make it necessarily correct or helpful.--NathanHawking 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

The article is about "pleonasm", not "pleonasm in English" and therefore examples of pleonasm in languages other than English are perfectly reasonable to include. It is pretty standard when describing a linguistic phenomenon to give examples from multiple languages. This is to demonstrate that the phenomenon is not merely an idiosyncratic feature of one language, but something that happens cross-linguistically.

The article plainly says: Syntactic pleonasm occurs when a language's grammar makes... This makes it plain that the phenomena occurs in other languages.

The mere fact that it occurs in other languages is of little significance. What is significant is that syntactic pleonasm works differently in different languages. In a null-subject language, subject pronouns can be pleonastic, or optional, whereas they can't be in English. That's an interesting fact that you would have removed from the article. Similarly in languages with complex negation, like French, one of the negators can become pleonastic. Neither of these phenonema occur in English, but they do occur in other languages. That is valuable information that ought to be in the article.

"Significance." "Interesting." "Valuable." Those are judgments you are making, and I don't disagree--depending upon the context. The real question is whether they are of sufficient significance, interest and value to warrant the insertion of non-English sentences in an English-language article. I believe non-English sentences detract from the article.

Other language entries which DO NOT include non-English examples: noun, pronoun, adjective, conjunction, idiom, linguistics. Verb and adverb both have passing comments upon those in other languages. I have no problem with the form the verb and adverb references take, because they speak to differences without introducing non-English sentences.

To a linguist, a description of a phenomenon that only includes examples from one language is pretty useless.

Are English-language Wikipedia articles to be designed for multilingual linguists, or for ordinary English speakers?

They're for everybody, including linguists. All the examples had translations into English so it's not as though reading the contested sections required fluency in Spanish in English. All the information was perfectly accessible to the average English reader. The fact that it was simply about a language other than English isn't sufficient justification for excluding it.

Then why not include such information for a hundred other languages? Should Polish speakers insert information for their language, and example sentences? Germans? Klingons? Navajos?

Because it's impractical, obviously. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:44, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Further, examples from different languages show different shades of how the phenonemon can occur. Pro-dropping, for example, does not occur in English, and thus subject pronouns are never pleonastic in English like they are in Spanish.

Why does an English-speaking person need to be informed about what English doesn't do with examples from languages which do? This would be a point more fitting the Spanish-language Wikipedia, or French, or in a comparative-language article, I think.

The fact that there are a few articles about linguistic phenonema that don't discuss examples other than in English should be construed as a flaw. The richness and diversity of languages are great: what a shame it would be if Wikipedia articles about linguistic phenonema only discussed English and mentioned other languages only in passing reference. Fortunately, most of the other articles do discuss other languages; see inflection, intonation, diphthong, accusative case, allophone, circumfix, onomatopoeia, grammatical mood. Imagine what a terrible article vowel would be if it only discussed English vowels.

There is a large difference between the way other languages are referenced in, say, the vowel article and the presentation in pleonasm. In the former, there is comparative information about other languages--not sentences IN other languages. (See the policy discussion advising that we use other languages sparingly.)

But I'm sure even that rule would allow linguistics as an exception. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 19:02, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Removing this information does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Nohat 01:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the section does nothing to educate English speakers about pleonasms in English, or about pleonasms in general, but instead creates a section most readers will skip over.

It does educate about pleonasms in general, as it gives examples of how pleonasms work in languages other English, where they occur in ways that simply don't happen in English.

I have no objection to mentioning this briefly and in passing. My principle objection is to the use of non-English examples in the article.

If we're going to have a reversion war over this, I suggest we put it up to a vote--I don't believe the section belongs there, and "narrowmindedness" is not a compelling argument.--NathanHawking 03:13, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I'd be happy to solicit others' opinions on this. I believe that most people will be firmly against removing valid and interesting information simply because the information is about a language other than English. You are not likely to find many Wikipedians who believe we should dumb down articles. Nohat 04:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine, but before that, let's consider this: Reduce the section I deleted to a section (entitled Pleonasms in other languages) which briefly mentions some distinctions in principle but does not take up space with non-English sentences. If you're eager to include non-English examples in Wikipedia, you could move them to another article entitled Pleonasm (other languages) or somesuch.--NathanHawking 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I am here because of the call for comments in the RfC page ; I begin by underlining that I have neither ability nor special interest in linguistics, and am simply giving a good faith opinion after a quick look at the hot debate and the page. (Hmmm shall I dare add that the intertwining of colors and strange tabspacing does not help to understand who spoke to whom above and follow the course of the discourses).

First I strongly disagree with the opinion that non-English examples should be by principle excluded from the article.

This being asserted, I would give a very different status to the Spanish example and the French one.

The Spanish example shows a phenomenon common to several languages, but not to be found in English. As such, it is probably relevant here (I write probably because it might also be too anecdotic, but having some competency in linguistics or grammar is necessary to make a judgement on this question). Should twenty-five examples of such phenomenons in Turkish, Navajo or Klingon accumulate, it would probably be necessary to choose three or four for their significance and variety, but one is certainly not too much, even not enough.

The French example is different, since it seems to be a special point of French grammar, and only French grammar. As such, it seems to me to be irrelevant in a _general_ article about pleonasms (it might be relevant in an article about negations in linguistics, or about pleonasms in French, that is in something more specific). --French Tourist 20:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also see no reason to exclude foreign language examples on principle. I've looked at both versions and including the examples does nothing to detract from the quality of the article while leaving them out leaves a gap in illustrating the variety of forms pleonasms can take. older≠wiser 21:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I find that my main objection to the insertion of non-English examples in English text is that they make articles less readable for the vast majority. One solution, which I've implemented in this pleonasm article, is to move foreign-language examples to their own section at the end of the article. In my view, the streamlines the article for English-only readers--the majority--without discouraging the broader perspective some non-English examples might bring. If the section becomes unwieldy, it can be moved to a sister article.--NathanHawking 21:20, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

This edit weakens the section

Poccil: Your edits and efforts to maintain NPOV are appreciated. Keep up the good work. I believe you went too far with this one, though. Here's why:

Preface: "Instances may be variously viewed as:"

Original: Undesirable: The use of bloated language can weaken writing.

Subsequent: Undesirable: Additional words that add little on their own.

First, the preceding sections used complete sentences, not sentence fragments. More important, "additional words that add little on their own" is covered fully in the Neutral section. What we're describing in the Undesirable section is the view that pleonasms actively detract from the quality of speech and writing.

Whether we agree with this view or not, it is a widely held view, and deserves complete representation in the article. We do not achieve NPOV by weakening the language of a strong view, especially if that misrepresents the view. If you sense an imbalance, perhaps we should seek a way to more fully represent the view seen as under-represented.

I've restored the sense, and added a few things. If you still disagree, let's discuss it here. --NathanHawking 06:52, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Rewritten to:

William Strunk Jr. argued, in The Elements of Style, (1918), that: [followed by the quote].

[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:18, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

This edit has problems- Reverting.

Nohat: I'm afraid your addition to the section made it difficult to read, and without adding much. I'll explain interlinearly:

The original: "Desirable: One may choose to use more words to express the same thought for poetic or literary effect. In addition, conversational or informal language is often more wordy than formal use, and one whose speech is extremely precise can be seen as lacking ease or grace." You added, here in italics:

In particular, the use of extra words

Unneeded. We already know the subject.

and the intonation of those words

Outside the scope of article. Besides, intonation is not unique to pleonasms.

help a speaker maintain the conciliatory nature of conversation.

Also not unique to pleonasms. This is a subject for language in general, or some other aspect of it.

It is not helpful to debate the parts of the sentence when there is only a single idea in the sentence.

You missed the point. Much of your addition is verbally bloated. "In particular, the use of extra words and the intonation of those words" could be replaced with "Pleonasms and their intonation"--assuming it was worth keeping. Thirteen words replaced with four. But intonation is not worth mentioning in every article on words. As I've said, it isn't unique to pleonasms.

The idea is that using extra words is a critical part of engaging in conversation because adding those words and the intonation of those words add shades of meaning that aren't part of mere sense. The essence is that these words add nothing to the meaning, and thus are pleonastic, but they add much to the connotation and tone, which are NOT a part of meaning. This is an essential function of pleonasm in spoken language.

Again you contradict yourself. You just said:

* those words add shades of meaning

* these words add nothing to the meaning

More to the point, everything you're trying to say--and I know what it is--can be said by adding two words to this line: "...for poetic, literary, and social effect.

Further, sometimes removing words that aren't strictly required for mere sense can make writing seem stilted, awkward

Already covered in last existing sentence.

or ambiguously terse.

That's a contradiction. If removal makes something ambiguous, then it IS required for "mere sense".

No. That's not true. I[f] addition of a word removes possible meanings from a sentence, then it's pleonastic. Consider:

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

One morning I shot an elephant while I was in my pajamas.

In the second example, "while I was" merely disambiguates from the possible meaning that the elephant was in the speaker's pajamas. It adds nothing to the meaning that wasn't already there in the first example; therefore it is pleonastic. Remember, pleonasms add nothing to meaning. The definition says nothing about subtracting possible meaning.

Your example is fraudulent. "I was in my pajamas" is a complete clause, as is "One morning I shot an elephant." Neither contains a pleonasm. Joining them with "while" does not create a pleonasm.

It is sophistry to claim that disambiguation does not create meaning. Your sentence is just plain wrong.

This can be especially true when words are cut from an idiomatic expression, leading the reader to wonder why the normal idiom wasn't used.

This is well-covered, in my view, by the reference to "stilted" in the Neutral section.

Actually, upon rereading--and considering your point--I moved that sentence to the Desirable section. Makes more sense there.--NathanHawking 08:35, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sentence about sounding stilted misses the point of this sentence. Stilted means "pompous, lofty, formal, or stiff". The point in this sentence is that cutting words from an idiom can be misleading or confusing because the reader will wonder why the normal idiom wasn't used. Was the writer just removing words just for the sake of removing words, or was a slightly different shade of meaning or connotation intended?

OK, that might be worth mentioning--but it can be done more succinctly with "without sounding stilted or obscuring intent." We don't need to delve into the psychology.

Also, the addition of a pleonastic word can sometimes be used to disambiguate between multiple possible interpretations of a sentence or phrase.

Once again, a contradiction. If a word disambiguates, it is not pleonastic.

This sentence was just expanding on my previous mention of "ambiguously terse". Perhaps the two ideas could have been better fleshed out.

Actually, the sentence is far too fleshy as it is, itself full of prolixity and pleonasm, ironically. You could have said: "A pleonasm can disambiguate." 22 words expressed in 4.

"The addition of a" states the obvious. We know pleonasms are "word"s. "Can" says everything that "can sometimes be used to" says. To disambiguate is automatically "between". "Multiple possible" is also inherent in disambiguation. Finally, we know it's "of a sentence or phrase".

This represents much of what's wrong with your addition--it's simply bloated. I can help you cure that, and save the essence of the ideas. But to keep this idea you'll have to demonstrate that something is still a pleonasm if it disambiguates. I'd love to see an example of that, and would be glad to include it in the article.

I tried hard to find something in this to keep, but can't. I'll be glad to discuss it further, but I feel compelled to remove the addition. Sorry. --NathanHawking 08:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

In the future, if you disagree with my edits, I would appreciate it if we discussed it here first, and then, upon mutually agreeing about what parts aren't necessary, allow me to remove the useless parts.

I note that you make reversions without first discussing them--as you just did by reverting my reversion, and as you did when reverting my foreign language removal. Double standard.

You already have a less-than-perfect record when it comes to removing content from this article, and frankly, you should consider yourself "on notice" in terms of removing content, particularly from this article.

Who are you to place another "on notice"? You have a "perfect record"? Doubtful. I am as qualified to remove and edit material as you are--"be bold", remember?

You add nothing to civility by removing content without first coming to an agreement about what needs removing. As a general principle here on Wikipedia, we should feel free to add to articles as much as we like if we believe our additions improve the article. We also feel free to edit the contents of articles so they are better written and organized (and by "edit" I mean to explicitly exclude the removal of content). However, when we remove contents from articles, we discuss it first and try to generate consensus because there is no benefit to removing information from articles unless there is something deeply flawed with it.

What can you cite as Wikipedia policy that editing by removal without consensus is discouraged while editing by modification or addition is OK? The bottom of every edit page says: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

I have, in fact, had material I contributed peremptorily removed--and discussion followed, not preceded.

I don't believe there was anything deeply flawed about my additions; in fact they added to the understanding of how pleonasms are used in everyday spoken language. So, in sum, if you don't like my additions, let's discuss it here and we can come to an agreement about what to do with it. Do not, however, just remove my edits and then post your reasoning to the talk page. It's just incivil. Nohat 18:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No less civil than reverting my edit of the foreign language section without prior discussion. No less civil than your restoration of my deletions without prior discussion. People add, delete, and modify on Wikipedia all the time without consultation. I imagine that if I track down your edits you do the same. I suggest you practice what you preach.

After considering your arguments, incorporating the valid concerns can be done by changing the original to (additions in bold):

Desirable: One may choose to use more words to express the same thought for for poetic, literary, and social effect. Conversational or informal language is often more wordy than formal use. One whose speech is terse and precise may be seen as lacking ease or grace. Some pleonasms fairly demand to remain intact—it is hard to imagine asking the pleonastic "Can you foretell the future?" another way without sounding stilted or obscuring intent.

Other than pleonasms disambiguating, have I really left anything out? --NathanHawking 22:33, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

First, I want to make the point that we need not conflate discussing pleonasms and using them. The allegation that my additions may have been wordier than necessary has no bearing on their veracity and relevance, and as such is insufficient cause to warrant removing them.

You seem to have no problems removing sentences others have written. I removed or severely condensed your ideas because they are either wrong, or don't belong in this article, or bloat the introductory section.

Don't misrepresent your actions. You didn't severely condense my ideas—you deleted them wholesale, with no attempt to replace the deleted content with something else. There is an essential difference between that and editing the content, and I'm growing more and more concerned that you don't seem to be acknowledging it.

Stop nitpicking. First I deleted what little content there actually was among that bloated glut of words because it was essentially repeating what was implied by existing text. Then I severely condensed it to make it more explicit, and you failed to respond to my suggestions, preferring instead to proceed with your own unnegotiated deletions, additions and edits. Your self-serving criticism is growing wearisome--you have antipathy toward acknowledging your own misdeeds, so let's just drop the high-ground posturing, shall we?

The suggestion that that the bulk of my additions could be summed up in three words glosses over the details. What are these social effects? How are they used? My additions answered these questions; merely mentioning "social effects" does not. In fact, pleonasm's effect on overall tone and the listener or reader is the most significant use of pleonasm in both spoken and written language, and this fact merits elaboration, not attenuation. Also, I should note that pleonasm concerns only the semantic denotation of a sentence, not its connotation or any other pragmatic effects.

If you can make a case for that--some actual references would lend authority to your view--put them in their own section. Pumping up the introduction with bloated language does little for the article's readability.

Are you questioning that pleonasm is used for social effect? Then:

Hardy. I added "social", remember?

From The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 52:

Everyday conversation is so habitual that it is easy to forget its status as a genre, with its own norms and conventions, often very different from those used in written language.... A degree of non-fluency is normal, while participants spontaneously construct their sentences; one expects to hear false starts, hesitation noises (er, um), pauses, repetitions, and other 'errors' of performance. [Emphasis added]

From Doing Our Own Thing, by John McWhorter, p. 24-25

For example, casual speech is full of repetitions...all of us do this to some extent when talking... As sociologist Basil Bernstein put it about casual speech, "The thoughts are often strung together like beads on a frame rather than following a planned sequence. A restriction in planning often creates a high degree of redundancy. This means that there may well be a great deal of repetition of information, through sequences which add little to what has already been given."

From The Oxford Companion to the English Language, by Tom McArthur, p. 854

To avoid misunderstandings, people generally repeat themselves more when speaking than writing. This corresponds to the greater possibility of error in listening than reading. A speaker in a noisy room will usually provide even more redundancy to help listeners recognize what is said.

Of course, if your complaint was with the assertion that pleonasm only concerns the semantic denotation, you need look only to the Merriam-Webster definition which says that pleonasm is "the use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense".

As I plainly said, if you can make a case for those issues which is worthy of more than a passing mention, put them in their own section. Otherwise reduce it to a few words and don't bloat the introduction.

Your analysis of my elephant example misses the point. Joining the two clauses with while does indeed create a pleonasm, because once joined, you can remove the words "while I was" and the sentence retains the same meaning. The unelided forms of sentences that employ this kind of ellipsis are an example of syntactic pleonasm. The two sentences mean exactly the same thing, except in the second example the words "while I was" are pleonastic.

NO, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SAME MEANING. Good grief, man. Removal merely creates TWO possible meanings. Addition disambiguates. Find a citation of one authority who supports your position that pleonasms can disambiguate, then we'll leave it in. Otherwise, it goes. (Good luck. Googling "pleonasm disambiguate" gives 11 hits, a grand total of ZERO supporting your point.)

How do you support the theory that "Yesterday I shot an elephant while I was in my pajamas" and "Yesterday I shot an elephant in my pajamas" have different meanings?

I don't fall for burden-of-proof-shifting fallacies. You're making the positive claim that pleonasms disambiguate. Prove it or remove it. Simple as that. Citations and references would carry far more weight than flawed arguments repeated in different words.

As for the "different meanings," you misrepresent my position. My position is that one is less ambiguous than the other, and that it is NOT the presence a pleonasm which accounts for that lessened ambiguity.

o "Yesterday I shot an elephant." is a sentence.

o "I was in my pajamas." is a sentence.

o "Yesterday I shot an elephant. I was in my pajamas." are two sentences which contain no pleonasms.

o "Yesterday I shot an elephant while I was in my pajamas." is one sentence created from two with a conjunction. The conjunction creates no pleonasms. If you claim otherwise, prove it.

In addition to being a kind of fish, tuna can be the fruit of a kind of edible prickly pear [1], and thus "a tuna sandwich" is ambiguous because the sandwich could be made of either the fish tuna or the fruit tuna. It is only because we have the pragmatic information "tuna most likely means the fish, especially with regards to sandwiches" that we are able to say that "tuna fish" is a pleonasm.

"Tuna fish" is pleonastic in contexts where "tuna" clearly refers to fish. In THIS context, where we might be talking about cactus fruit or fish, then "tuna fish" is no longer pleonastic, is it? If you're implying that a "pleonasm disambiguates," then you've simply out-maneuvered yourself. ONCE AGAIN: If it disambiguates, it's not a pleonasm. Prove otherwise.

The situation is the same with the elephant example. We have the pragmatic information "elephants are very unlikely to wear pajamas belonging to a human"; therefore we can say that "while I was" is pleonastic because without it we still know it is the speaker that was wearing pajamas, not the elephant.

Make up your mind. In one place you claim that "while I was" is a pleonasm which disambiguates. Now you're saying that pragmatic information disambiguates and that's what makes "while I was" a pleonasm. Which is it?

I'm getting the feeling you're being evasive. Lose Groucho's elephant and use a truly ambiguous sentence: "I shot my wife's lover while ( ) in my pajamas." Do the parens mean "I was" or "he was"? It's ambiguous--we don't know. If they mean "he was," is it a pleonasm? Clearly not. If they mean "I was," is it a pleonasm? Does the phrase become pleonastic merely because it mentions "I" again? Hardly. They are "words ... necessary to express an idea", the antithesis of a pleonasm.

Look, you're just wrong about this. Maybe you can somehow come up with something which is both pleonastic and disambiguating in some way I don't understand--please do if you can--but until you do the idea seems inherently self-contradictory and has no place in the article.--NathanHawking 07:50, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Your objection to explaining how a clipped idiom might affect a reader because it's a discussion of psychology is not really valid—possible interpretations are firmly within the realm of pragmatics and semantics, which are entirely germane to this topic.

The article is about pleonasms. If you can add relevant and concise content about the idiomatic use of pleonasms, be my guest. If your thought is buried, or bloated, or irrelevant, though, expect me to delete or modify it.

Modify my additions—that's fine and part of how things work here. But don't delete anything without discussing it first—that's not OK and not how things work here. If you disagree with something, then contextualize it; don't just delete it. The primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide information, and deleting information from Wikipedia is contrary to that goal. Nohat 06:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to clutter this talk page with a lengthy discussion of policy, civility, and deletion. I am only going to say that deleting valid content without discussing first, particularly content written by well-respected, long-time members of the Wikipedia community, is unacceptably rude behavior and won't be tolerated. If you don't believe me, ask around. You've done it twice now in this article. Please don't do it again.

I see that you have no problem deleting others' sentences at your discretion. You play by different rules?

Finally, please see my recent revisions to the "desirable" paragraph. I believe I have improved the organization to make the points I added yesterday clearer. Nohat 00:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that you rewrote, added and discarded as you saw fit, all without consulting me. Your deeds don't match what you expect of others. I'll leave this matter for a time. If you can't support your mistaken theories on this talk page or with citations in the article, I will eventually edit your work. Repeating yourself in different words is not proof. --NathanHawking 03:39, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Criticism of Strunk's writing

I'm not sure I see the purpose of pointing out all the pleonasms in the passage from The Elements of Style.

What better way to introduce examples?

Maybe in a section called "examples of pleonasms", where people would expect to find them.

I have no problem in principle with rearranging the article, and will study that possibility.

If you want to use them as examples of pleonasms then they should be in an "examples of pleonasms" section.

Sure, they could go there. But "should"? Hmmm. You seem to have no problem with introducing your own examples in the Desirable section. You fail to appreciate the inherent conciseness and economy of using the words of an advocate of concision for both purposes. You would turn a virtue and good writing into a vice.

I wasn't aware that conciseness and economy was one of our goals here at Wikipedia. I thought our goal was to provide information in a well-organized fashion. Silly me. I guess muddling together not-directly-related examples of something and descriptions of the various ways of employing something is OK as long as you're being concise and economical with words.

Read Strunk again. What good is "well-organized information" buried in bloated verbiage? Of less value than a concise, easy-to-read version of the same information.

You're probably smarting because I criticized your bloated style. OK, get over it. It's a skill every writer has to work at. You labor under the illusion that your wordy sentences actually say more--mostly, they don't.

If you actually think the organization of my material is "muddled"--and aren't acting from spite--that's OK too. I'll have a look at that possibility in the next few days.

Putting them in the "General" section just seems like mean-spirited criticism, and pointing them out immediately after using the passage to support a point seems like a subtle ad hominem attack on Strunk. Nohat 02:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criticism is not inherently mean-spirited, nor is my particular example. Nowhere did I mock him, and noting the irony is hardly mockery. That this is an "attack" is balderdash. It's factual--and balanced!--commentary, and most of all it's interesting that the most-quoted advocate of conciseness might have been more concise himself, had he chosen. These articles can be more than dreary and bloated recitation of fact, you know.

Concision doesn't necessarily imply maximal lexical austerity. Strunk's example is plenty concise in that it conveys a lot in a few words. Pointing out that he could have squeezed even more words out is in fact the least relevant piece of information in the article. I'd go so far as to say that pointing out that someone who advocates concision isn't themself concise is tantamount to accusing them of hypocrisy.

Good lord. That's not worth a response.

Indeed, you seem to be fond of accusing people of hypocrisy, regardless of the fact that it's not a valid argument because it's just the logical fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque.

Oh, don't play logician with me, lad, or I'll slap ya' naked and hide yer clothes. :-) Pointing out hypocrisy is not a fallacy if 1) it's a fact, and 2) if it IS the point at issue rather than a distraction--as the ad hominem accusation you just made was. Your commentary is riddled with personal insults at best and ad hominem at worst. Why don't we stop this before it gets out of hand?

I would suggest that if you want to punch up articles because they are too dreary that you do so with snappy writing, not the addition of irrelevant commentary.

Irrelevant in your view. Not in mine. We need examples of pleonasms in the article, and those are examples which use a classic text FOR TWO PURPOSES. I'll accept advice from you on how to write well once you've demonstrated that ability yourself. You would do well to write with HALF the "snap" I manage. I've worked at it for a long time; you're clearly just beginning.

If you wish to suggest reorganization I'll consider your suggestions, but don't suck out the life I've injected into the article. --NathanHawking 04:18, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I would suggest moving everything from "Ironically," to "writer's art" to a separate section if it must be included. Nohat 06:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a look at refactoring the article soon. There may be some merit in your view. --NathanHawking 08:22, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

---

I have removed the Strunk quotation and the commentary to which you object. You have morphed the introduction so much that it is virtually unrecognizable, and if the Strunk material ever did work well there, it clearly no longer fits now.

As presently written, the portions you just added to the article seem to me an elephantine mish-mash of cobbled-together ideas, with ponderous wording, poor flow and poor organization. Feel entirely free to remove all traces of my contribution to this article as you see fit. Our writing styles do not work well together--nor do our personal styles--and I would not relish "negotiating" every phrase, were that even possible.

In fact, I find genuine collaboration with you impossible--neutral fact, not assigning blame. I suggest we work hard to stay out of each other's way; pissing contests will do nothing to enhance either of our Wikipedia adventures. --NathanHawking 08:18, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)