Jump to content

Recommended Posts

using 'oh' as part of a phone number is fine, because everyone knows there are no letters in telnos, and it's quicker than saying zero. Only for (say) passport nos or other strings which have potentioal of zeros AND 'ohs' do we need to be so specific.

technically it's arguable, but not for real-world usage. In IT, I can see the point also.


"Let me be honest with you"

(translates to "normally I'm dishonest when speaking with you")

Whilst I'm with you on superfluity ed_pete, much fruit is picked green, stuffed in a chiller on a ship and then bombarded with ethylene to ripen it just before it hits the market.


Some fruits do only ripen on the tree, so in that case it would be unnecessary.


I mused to a colleague whether fruit that ripened on my desk was really just rotten fruit, started investigating ripening and was very soon lost as I last did chemistry a looooong time ago.


http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2011/10/12/fruit-ripening-how-does-it-work/

Wow - you must be a hoot to work with EP. ;-)


Tautology is quite annoying. The hoi-polloi gets me every time as does "free gift". Also "safe-haven".


But these are often so ingrained we rarely stop to consider them.


And they are of miniscule annoyance compared to "centred around". A pox on your house!

Oh and sandwiches, there probably is a legal definition, but the main reason places like Pret want to make themselves stand out is that most sandwiches are a few days old by the time you eat them, if bought pre-packed.


So for man's greatest luncheon, I'm not sure the wording is superfluous.

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Tautology is quite annoying.

>

> And what of pleonasm, good sir?

>

> And Pibe, I've toured the Kettle Chips factory -

> they are a little more more hand cooked than that.


Pleonasm has its place. Mainly in literature and speeches for rhetorical effect. Shakespeare and Beckett did it, Churchill did it. That'll satisfy me.

As a blanket rule that doesn't really work, Eric Gill shagged his dog for instance, if it was good enough for him ;-)


I get your point though 'something done well is good' is something of a superfluity in itself.

Plenoasty is a modern day scourge, a bit of discipline in writing these days would be most welcome.


I had to precis a 10 page document by Accenture to help my wife prepare for an interview a couple of days ago and I only found 4 salient points, the rest was just waffle.

Gill having sex with his dog was the least of his problems!


And it wasn't stated as a blanket rule to adhere to, merely an example of when repetition and redundancy can actually be used skillfully for rhetorical purposes.


Obviously in corporate documents, like the one you mention, it should be removed and the authors birched.


Working in a press office in the civil service, I often have to decifer policy documents for their salient points to write a press release. My brain tends to ache by the end. Stakeholder? No, that was soooo 1997. Partner? No - has liberal connotations. Horizontal interest group? Ah, winner. We like those. Yeah, except no one has the foggiest feck what you're talking about.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...