The word redundant suggests a wave that keeps splashing over the side of the boat, over and over. We use it to signify something unnecessary because it has already been said or done. It is not the same as repetition, which can be extraordinarily effective.
Redundancies in poor writing occur most often when the meaning of an adverb is already implied by the verb. They can lead to real silliness:
“Successfully foiled again!” snarled Mr. Whiplash, standing beside the empty railroad tracks.
The house was partially damaged by fire. A part of the house was damaged? How can you damage something, if not partially? Something that is completely damaged is not damaged. It is destroyed. Speaking of which:
His reputation was completely destroyed. He had been hoping for a while that it would be incompletely destroyed, but alas, it was not to be.
The barn was completely surrounded by water. That is, it was surrounded on all sides by water. We can even make it redundantly redundant, like so: The barn was completely surrounded on all sides by water.
The Cardinals won twelve consecutive games in a row. The year before, they had won twelve consecutive games, but they weren’t in a row. The year before that, they had won twelve games in a row, but they weren’t consecutive.
Holmes darted quickly to the door, where a lone gunman was standing by himself, his hand tucked secretly in his jacket pocket. “Moriarty, my old enemy,” he said, “nous nous revoyons encore!”
December 17th, 2012 | 10:58 am
I see “completely destroyed” as redundancy for effect, like a repetition. The others carry more of a sense of “I don’t know what both words mean so I’ll use them both thinking they’re not redundant.” Except for the last — I have no clue what it was that Holmes said.
December 17th, 2012 | 12:00 pm
It’s possible the Cardinals could win the last 6 games of one season and the first 6 games of the next season–which would be 12 in a row, but not 12 consecutive?
Perhaps I need to get back to work…
December 17th, 2012 | 12:21 pm
Most maddeningly common redundancy one hears today: “This is our one-year anniversary!”
December 17th, 2012 | 12:22 pm
i think the “re” in revoyons makes “encore” redundant. but did holmes really say that?
December 17th, 2012 | 1:55 pm
Or “this morning at 4:00 a.m.”
One that bemuses me, but that no one else seems bothered by, is “we will answer your call in the order in which it was received.” My call was singular, so there’s no “order” in which it could be received!
December 18th, 2012 | 4:49 am
I love them all! Redundancies are so much fun!
I was musing about this example:
“The house was partially damaged by fire. A part of the house was damaged? How can you damage something, if not partially? Something that is completely damaged is not damaged. It is destroyed.”
True. Which led me to play around with the meaning of this in my head.
You could say “partially damaged” in a context where there was more than one kind of damage.
And you could say a house was “entirely damaged” by fire. I suppose technically this would mean the house was not totally destroyed (speaking of redundancies :-) ), but all over the house there was damage, not only in one part of the house.
So, you could say that a house was partially damaged, without having a redundancy, but I believe most people who say this are using it to mean “partially destroyed,” and not “partially damaged.” Then again, you could have a house that was partially damaged and partially destroyed by fire, but I am getting carried away here…
pentamom wrote: “I see “completely destroyed” as redundancy for effect, like a repetition. ”
Yes, a repetition to augment intensity; it adds punch to it, independently if it is a repetition.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact