Comments on: Borderline redundancy http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/ Cantankerous commentary on what we speak and why we speak it, from Bill Brohaugh Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:11:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mr Fnortner http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1695 Mr Fnortner Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:24:04 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1695 Actually the redundancy is not nearly as frightening as the internal inconsistency in the phrase "did not want war and was committed to fighting terrorism," oh, and the phrase "aimed at reducing tensions...moved troops toward their shared border," both apparently stated with a straight face. Orwell would be proud. Actually the redundancy is not nearly as frightening as the internal inconsistency in the phrase “did not want war and was committed to fighting terrorism,” oh, and the phrase “aimed at reducing tensions…moved troops toward their shared border,” both apparently stated with a straight face. Orwell would be proud.

]]> By: Bill Brohaugh http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1679 Bill Brohaugh Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:39:06 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1679 goofy, Ridger, JohnnyB: Uncle. Points well taken; points conceded. I still prefer other approaches, but I'll allow that it's a matter of taste. goofy, Ridger, JohnnyB: Uncle. Points well taken; points conceded. I still prefer other approaches, but I’ll allow that it’s a matter of taste.

]]> By: JohnnyB http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1678 JohnnyB Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:50:42 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1678 I have to agree that the redundancy here is helpful and even a case of writing tight. "their border" could mean Pakistan's border, India's border or both their borders, which happen to be the same on one side. Some readers may not know that India and Pakistan share a border and "their shared border" neatly imparts that information (without having to add another sentence or clause) while providing clarity - no one has pause to make sure they got the right meaning of "their". I have to agree that the redundancy here is helpful and even a case of writing tight. “their border” could mean Pakistan’s border, India’s border or both their borders, which happen to be the same on one side. Some readers may not know that India and Pakistan share a border and “their shared border” neatly imparts that information (without having to add another sentence or clause) while providing clarity – no one has pause to make sure they got the right meaning of “their”.

]]> By: The Ridger http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1666 The Ridger Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:13:19 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1666 Why is "shared border" less 'precise' than "India-Pakistan border"? Why is “shared border” less ‘precise’ than “India-Pakistan border”?

]]> By: goofy http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1641 goofy Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:46:09 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1641 I don't see the harm in it. Redundancy is an essential feature of language anyway. I don’t see the harm in it. Redundancy is an essential feature of language anyway.

]]> By: Bill Brohaugh http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1636 Bill Brohaugh Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:18:04 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1636 I submit that context sufficiently implies the common border. India is unlikely to be concerned about Pakistani troops heading to the Afghan border, particularly since such movement is typical. I'm all for adding words to lock down clarity. But if taking that route, employ precision and not redundancy: "the Pakistan-India border" or "the countries' border." I submit that context sufficiently implies the common border. India is unlikely to be concerned about Pakistani troops heading to the Afghan border, particularly since such movement is typical.

I’m all for adding words to lock down clarity. But if taking that route, employ precision and not redundancy: “the Pakistan-India border” or “the countries’ border.”

]]> By: The Ridger http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1628 The Ridger Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:43:27 +0000 http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/12/29/borderline-redundancy/#comment-1628 I don't get it. Sure, it's redundant, but if you take out "shared" it's unclear which border Pakistan is moving troops towards, especially for those of us who accept "their" for "Pakistan". Adding that one word removes all doubt. I don’t get it. Sure, it’s redundant, but if you take out “shared” it’s unclear which border Pakistan is moving troops towards, especially for those of us who accept “their” for “Pakistan”. Adding that one word removes all doubt.

]]>