Talk:Pleonasm
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Archive
This file was exceeding 45K, so the first half was moved to:
NOTE: This page has not flowed in chronological order, and it was not possible to easily refactor it. So considerable current commentary is in that file. Check there if you don't find it here.--NathanHawking 01:36, 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. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=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 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=haven).
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)
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?
- 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_other_languages_sparingly).)
- 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pleonasm&diff=6840490&oldid=6840483), 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.
- No. That's not true. I[f] addition of a word removes possible meanings from a sentence, then it's pleonastic. Consider:
- 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 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 52:
- 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 Doing Our Own Thing, by John McWhorter, p. 24-25
- 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.
- From The Oxford Companion to the English Language, by Tom McArthur, p. 854
- 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.
- 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.
- In addition to being a kind of fish, tuna can be the fruit of a kind of edible prickly pear [1] (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tuna&x=15&y=15), 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)
"The Al-Qaeda base"
Not disagreeing with you, Stirling Newberry, but I would be interested to know why this one doesn't qualify. It seems to follow the same pattern as the La Ristorante and La Brea examples. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because the others have names that imply the the larger grouping. Ristorante (individual item) -> restaurant etc. Aside from that the arabic word for military base would often not be "al Qaeda".
Stirling Newberry 00:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
