Pleonasm

src: www.wordsmith.org

Pleonasme ( ; from Greek ????????? (pleonasmÃÆ'³s) , from ????? ( pleon) , meaning 'more, too much') is the use of more words or parts of the word than is necessary or sufficient for a clear expression: for example darkness or burns fire . Such redundancy, with traditional rhetorical criteria, is a manifestation of tautology. However, pleonasme can also be used for emphasis, or because phrases have become established in certain forms.

Video Pleonasm

Usage

Often, pleonasme is understood as a useless, cliche or repetitive word or phrase, but it can also be the use of mediocre idioms. Can assist in achieving certain linguistic effects, be it social, poetic, or literary. In particular, pleonasm sometimes works just like a rhetorical repetition - it can be used to reinforce ideas, arguments, or questions, make the writing clearer and easier to understand. Furthermore, pleonasme can serve as a redundancy check: If a word is unknown, misunderstood, or misheard, or poor communication medium - a cordless or improper handwritten telephone connection - the pleonastic phrase can help ensure that all meaning can be communicated. even if some words are missing.

idiomatic expression

Some pleonastic phrases are part of the language idiom, such as "tuna" and "safe haven" in English. They are so common that their use is mediocre and often not even heard by native speakers, although in many cases redundancy can be dropped without loss of meaning.

When expressing the possibility, English speakers often use pleonastic potentially exposive expressions like Possible or maybe that is possible , where both terms (the verb may be /adverb maybe and adjectives maybe ) have the same meaning under certain constructs. Many English speakers use such phrases for general possibilities, so most of such expressions by speakers are actually slanderous. However, others use this expression only to show the difference between the ontological possibilities and the epistemic possibilities, as in "Both the ontological possibilities of X under current conditions and the ontological impossibility of X under current conditions epistemically" (in logical terms, "I do not knowing any fact that is incompatible with the truth of proposition X, but I am also unaware of any fact that is inconsistent with the truth of the negation X "). The use of dual construction habits to show the possibility of per se is much less widespread among speakers of most other languages ​​(except in Spanish, see example); more precisely, almost all speakers of the language use one term in one expression:

• French: Il maybe or il arrival peut.
• Romanian: Este posibil or se poate ÃÆ'®ntÃÆ' Â ¢ mpla.
• a typical Spanish pleonasme
  • Voy a subir arriba - I will go upstairs, " arriba " is not necessary.
  • Entra para adentro - Going inside, " adentro " is not required.

In a satellite-framed language like English, a verb phrase that contains particles that show the direction of motion so often that even when such particles are pleonastic, it seems natural to include it (eg "go inside").

Professional and scientific usage

Some pleonastic phrases, when used in professional or scientific writing, may reflect the use of a developed standard or a meaning known to the specialist but not necessarily to those outside the discipline. Examples such as "null and void", "terms and conditions", "respectively and each" are legal doublets that are part of the official operating language often arranged in legal documents. A classic example of such use is that by Lord Chancellor at the time (1864), Lord Westbury, in the case of English from Gorely's exe part, when he described the phrase in a Law as "excessive and reprehensible excessive ". Although the use of this type may be favored in certain contexts, it may also be disliked when used haphazardly to describe false knowledge, obscure, or in other words long-winded. This is especially true in disciplines where inaccuracies can introduce ambiguity (like natural science).

Style preferences

In addition, pleonasme can serve an external purpose to meaning. For example, a speaker that is too short is often interpreted as less easy or grace, because, in spoken language and sign language, the sentence is made spontaneously without the benefit of editing. Restrictions on the ability to plan often create a lot of redundancy. In written language, omitting words that are not very necessary sometimes make the writing appear stiff or awkward, especially if the words are cut from idiomatic expressions.

On the other hand, as with literary or rhetorical effects, excessive use of pleonasm undermines writing and speech; words distract from content. Authors who want to conceal the mind or purpose obscure its meaning with long-windedness. William Strunk Jr. advocated the conclusion in The Elements of Style (1918):

The powerful writing is concise. Sentences should not contain unnecessary words, paragraphs without unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that images should not have unnecessary lines and machines no unnecessary parts. This does not require the author to make all his sentences short, or that he avoids all the details and treats his subject only in outline, but every word is told.

However, we only need to look at the Baroque, Mannerist, and Victoria sources for various opinions.

Literary use

• "This is the most not good est of all." --William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Round 3, Scenes 2.183).
• "I'll be short: your son's son is angry: I call for, for, to define true madness,/What does not but be none other than anger?" - Hamlet (Round 2, Theme 2)
• "Outside the garage there are some ornamental trees that are pruned as carefully as a poodle ." --Raymond Chandler, The Big Sleep.
• "Let me tell you this, when the social worker offers you, for free, for free, and without anything, something to stop you from fainting, which with them is an obsession, there is no point in retreating.." --Samuel Beckett, Molloy.

Maps Pleonasm

Type

There are two types of pleonasme: syntactic pleonasms and semantic pleonasme .

Syntactic pletasm

Syntactic pletabasm occurs when the grammar of a language makes the particular function word optional. For example, consider the following English sentence:

"I know you're coming."

"I know you're coming."

In this construction, the conjunction is optional when combining sentences into verb phrases with know . Both sentences are true in grammar, but the word that is pleonastic in this case. Conversely, when the sentence in the oral form and the verb involved is one statement, the use of makes makes it clear that this speaker makes indirectly rather than direct quotations, as he does not denounce certain words to the person he picture has made a statement; the demonstrative attribute that does not match that example either. Also, some authors may use "it" for technical clarity reasons. In some languages, like French, the word is not optional and therefore not considered a pleonastik.

The same phenomenon occurs in Spain with subject pronouns. Since Spanish is a language without a subject, which allows subject change to be removed when understood, the following sentence means the same:

" Yo te amo. "

" Te amo. "

In this case, the pronoun yo ("I") is grammatically optional; both sentences mean "I love you" (however, they may not have the same tone or intentions - this depends on pragmatics rather than grammar). Different constructions but syntactically equivalent, in many languages, may also indicate differences in registers.

The process of removing pronouns is called pro-dropping , and it also occurs in many other languages, such as Korean, Japanese, Hungarian, Latin, Portuguese, Scandinavian, Swahili, some Slavic languages, and Laos.

In contrast, formal English requires an open subject in each clause. Sentences may not require the subject to have valid meaning, but to meet the syntactic requirements for the explicit subject of the pleonastik pronoun (or dummy pronouns used; only the first sentence in the following pair is acceptable English:

"It's raining."

"It's raining."

In this instance the pleonastic "it" fills the subject function, however, it does not contribute any meaning to the sentence. The second sentence, which removes the pleonastic is is marked as non-mathematical although no meaning is lost by negligence. Elements like "that", or "exist" function as blank subject markers are also called (syntactic) swear words, as well as artificial pronouns. Comparing:

"There's rain."

"It's raining today."

Pleonastic ne reveals uncertainty in French formal works as follows:

" Je crains qu'il ne pleuve. "
("I'm afraid rain may fall.")

" Ces idÃÆ'Â © es sont plus difficiles ÃÆ' comprendre que je ne pensais. "
("These ideas are harder to understand than I think.")

Two more striking examples of French pleonastic constructions are the word "aujourd'hui " translated as "today", but originally meaning "on this day", and the phrase " Qu'est -ce que c'est? "means" What is it? "or" What is it? ", while literally meaning" What is it? ".

There are examples of pleonastic, or dummy, negative in English, such as construction, heard in the New England region of the United States, where the phrase "So no I" is meant to have the same positive meaning as "Me too."

When Robert South said, "This is a pleonasme, an ordinary figure in Scripture, by many expressions to signify an important thing", he observes the biblical biblical poetic tendency to repeat the mind in different words, for the written Hebrew Bible is a relatively early form of written language and is written using an oral pattern, which has a lot of pleonasme. In particular, very many verses of the Psalms are divided into two parts, each of which says the same thing in different words. The complicated rules and different written language forms of spoken language do not develop as well as they exist today when the books composing the Old Testament were written. See also parallelism (rhetoric).

Semantic pleonasm is a question of style and usage rather than grammar. Linguists usually call this redundancy to avoid confusion with syntactic pletasm, a phenomenon more important for theoretical linguistics. It can take many forms, including:

• Overlapping : One semantic component of a word entered by another:

"Accept free gift with every purchase."

"I ate a fish tuna ."

"The plumber fixes our hot water heater . ." (This famous pleonasme is attacked by American comedian George Carlin but not really excessive, a device that raises the temperature of cold water to room temperature will also be a water heater, even if it does not heat up hot water.)

"The Big Friendly Giant " (a children's book by Roald Dahl), a giant inherently large

• Prolixity : Phrases can have words that do not add anything, or nothing logical or relevant, to their meaning.

"I'm going down to the south."
(The south is not really "down", it's just described like that on a map based on convention.)

"You can not face to the facts."

"He went into the room."

"Every child mother " (as in 'Christmas Song' by Nat King Cole ', also known as' Chestnut roasting...').

(With a human being, being a child (or a human being at all), implies being a child to mother, so redundancy here is used to broaden the context of the curiosity of the child about the Santa Claus sleigh, including the full Lines concept: "And every mother's child will spy- "One can further argue that the word" mother "is included for the purpose of lyrical flow, adding two syllables, which makes the line sound complete, since" every child "should be short to fit with lyrical/rhyme scheme.)

"Why is it that God has joined together , do not let the people split."

"He raised up his hand as a surrender."

"Where are you at ?"

"located" or similar before the preposition: the preposition contains the location idea and does not require a maid.

"actual house" for "home", and similar: unnecessary re-specifiers.

"Actual facts": facts.

"Every day": every day.

"By" or "at the bottom": -..

"This particular item": this item.

"Different" or "separate" after numbers: for example:

• "4 different species" only "4 species", because two unrelated species share one common species.
• "9 separate cars": cars are always separated.
  • (But in the example "Discounts if you buy ten different items together here", "different" has a meaning, for example if ten items including two packets of frozen peas, the ten items are not all different.)

An expression like "tuna", however, may provoke one of many possible responses, such as:

1. This will only be accepted as synonym with "tuna".
2. This will be considered excessive (and therefore may be silly, illogical, stupid, inefficient, dialect, strange, and/or deliberately funny).
3. This will imply the difference . A "tuna" reader can wonder: "Is there a tuna that is not a fish? Moreover, there are dolphin dolphins and dolphins." This assumption is true, because "tuna" can also mean prickly pear. Furthermore, "tuna" is sometimes used to refer to animal flesh as opposed to the animal itself (similar to the distinction between cow and livestock ).
4. This would be considered a verbal clarification, since the word "tuna" is short enough, and may, for example, be misheard "aligned" followed by aspiration, or (in the dialect that drops the final -r ) as a "tuner".

This is a good reason for the speaker and writer to be careful to realize pleonasms, especially with cases like "tuna", which are usually only used in some American dialects, and will sound strange in other language variants, and even more strange in translation to another language.

A similar situation is:

• "Pen ink" is not just a "pen" in the southern United States, where "pen" and "pin" are spoken the same.
• "Additional accessories" to be ordered separately for new cameras, different from the accessories provided with the camera as sold.

Note that not all constructs are usually pleonasme so in all cases, nor do all constructs come from pleonastic own pleonasme:

"Place the glass there on the table." (Can, depending on the layout of the room, means "Place the glass on the table across the room instead of the table right in front of you"; if the room was laid out like that, most English speakers would intuitively understand that far, direct is the reference, but if there is only one table in the room, the phrase will be pleonastic.Also, it could mean, "Put the glass in a certain place on the table"; thus, in this case, it is not > not pleonastic.)

"I'm going to the way down South."
(Perhaps it implies "I will be much further south than you think if I do not emphasize the amazement of my goals"; but such sentences are also sometimes - and sometimes jokingly - used pleonastically when "south" just do; in context, the intent of the speaker/writer, and finally even on the expectations of the listener/reader.)

Pleonasme morphemic

Morphem, not just words, can enter the realm of pleonasme: Some parts of the word are optional in many languages ​​and dialects. A familiar example for American English speakers is "optional" -al-, perhaps most commonly seen in "public" vs. "public" - both spellings are considered true/accepted in American English, and both are spoken equally, in this dialect, public "pleonastik" in US English; in other dialects it is "necessary", while it is quite plausible that in other or more generations of American English it would be "forbidden". The treatment of words ending in "-ic", "-ac", etc., is quite inconsistent in US English - compare "crazy" or "forensically" with "stealth" or "heroic"; "Forensicly" does not look "right" in any dialect, but "heroic" seems internally overkill for many Americans. (Likewise, there are thousands of Google search results mostly American for "erotic", some in leading publications, but not even appearing in 23-volume, 23,000-page, 500,000-definition Oxford English Dictionary the largest in the world, and even an American dictionary gives the correct spelling as "erotically".) In a more modern pairs of words, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers dictionary says that "electricity" and "electric" mean exactly the same thing. However, the usual form of adverb is "electric". (For example, "Glass trunks are electrically charged by rubbing them with silk.")

Some grammars (most of them US-based) will say that the "-sink" is not "-ally" is "true" in any case there is no "-isical" variant of the base, and vice versa; ie "maniac" is a word, while "public", not "publicly", must be true because "publical" is (arguably) not a real word (does not appear in OED ). This logic is doubtful, for the most part, if not all "-isical" constructs are arguably "real" words and most certainly appear more than once in "reputable" publications, and also immediately understood by even educated English readers they "look funny" to some people, or do not appear in the popular dictionary. In addition, there are many examples of words that have a very large extended form that has passed through one or more intermediate forms, eg. "Disestablishmentarian" in the absence of "disestablishmentary" (which does not appear in OED ). However, while some US editors may consider "-alys" vs "-ly" to be pleonastic in some cases, the majority of other English speakers will not, and many of the words "-ally" are not pleonastic to anyone, even in American English.

The most prevalent use of morphology in English is "ignorance", which is strongly criticized as non-word. The standard usage is "off", which is already negative; adding negative additions ir - is interpreted by some as logically reversing the meaning for "relating to/for", which is certainly not what the speaker intended to convey. (According to most of the dictionaries that include it, "disregarding" seems to stem from the confusion between "no matter" and "do not care", which has overlapping meanings.)

Pleonasme Morphemik in Mandarin Mandarin

There are several examples in Chinese vocabulary where the objects of pleonasm and cognitive exist. Their presence usually shows the plural of nouns or nouns in formal contexts. ? - ?? books/books - books (in general)? - ?? paper/tissue - pieces of paper (formal)

In some instances, the form of pleonasme of the verb is used with the intent of emphasizing on one meaning of the verb, isolating them from their idiomatic and figurative usage. But the overtime of the pseudo object, which sometimes repeats the verb, is almost inherently paired with it.

For example, the word "?" (to sleep) is an intransitive verb, but can express different meanings when combined with objects of the preposition like "sleep with". However, in Chinese, "?" usually paired with a "pseudo" character, "but it is not entirely a cognitive object, to express a resting action.

"???" * (I want to sleep)

Although such use is "?" not found among native speakers of Chinese and may sound strange, this phrase is grammatically correct and it is clear that "?" means "sleep/rest" in this context.

"???? & amp; ????" (I want to sleep & I'll sleep)

In this case "??" (Sleep) is a complete verb and native speakers often express themselves in this way. Adding this particle clears the suspicion of using it with a direct object shown in the following example:

"???? & amp; ?????" (I want to have sex with her & I want to sleep with her)

When the verb follows the direct object animation "?" meaning it changes dramatically. The first example is primarily seen in everyday speeches. Note that the Preposition Object "having sex with" is equivalent to the Direct Object "?" in Chinese.

One can also find a way out of this verb, using another word that is not used to express an idymotic expression or require pleonasmy because it has only one meaning.

"????" (I want to "go to the dorm")

Anyhow "??" is a verb used in high-level diction, such as the English verb with Latin roots.

There is no relationship found between Chinese and English about verbs that can take pleonasmies and cognitive objects. Although the verb "to sleep" might take a cognate object such as "deep sleep," it is purely coincidental, because

1) the verbs that exist in this form are significantly more than English

2) when the English verb is used without cognitive objects, the diction is natural and the meaning is clear at every level of diction

I want to sleep (I want to rest)

I want to sleep (I want to rest)

Subtler redudancies

In some cases, meaning redundancy occurs at the syntactic level above the word, as at the phrase level:

"This is dÃÆ' Â © jÃÆ' vu again."

"I never made predictions, especially about the future."

The redundancy of these two famous statements is deliberate, for funny effects. (See Yogi_Berra # Yogi-isms.) But people do not hear educated people say "my predictions about the political future" for "my predictions about politics", which are equivalent in meaning. While predictions are always about the future (at least in relation to the time the prediction is made), the nature of this future can be subtle (eg, "I predict that he died a week ago" - predictions are about future discoveries or evidence of the date of death, itself). Generally the "future" is assumed, making most of this kind of construction pleonastic. The last funny quote above about not making predictions - by Yogi Berra - is not really a pleonasme, but a play of irony on words.

But "This is dÃÆ' Â © jÃÆ'vu again." it could mean that there was something else dÃÆ' Â © jÃÆ' vu of the same event or idea, which has now appeared for the third time.

Words of redundancy, and the word "useless" or "unreasonable" (or phrase, or morpheme) can also be inherited by one language from the influence of other languages, rather than pleonasme in a more critical sense, but actual changes in grammatical construction which are deemed necessary for "proper" use in the language or dialect in question. Irish English, for example, is vulnerable to a number of constructions that non-Irish speakers find strange and sometimes straightforwardly confusing or silly:

"I m after put ting on the table."
("I have placed it on the table." This further demonstrates that the effect, whether pleonastic or pseudo-pleonastic, may apply to words and words, and multi-word phrases, given that the full apparition will be "I after put ting on the table".)

"See the person you there."
("Look at that person there": examples of word substitutions, not additions, that seem absurd outside the dialect. This seemingly possessive public construction often confuses non-Irish people so initially they do not understand what it is. " b> having seeing that person exist "is arguably more than twice as excessive, in the shorter" look at the person "version it will basically convey the same meaning.)

"She is my wife so she ."
("She is my wife." Subjects and dual, post-complementary verbs are used to emphasize factual statements or simple statements.)

All this construction comes from the adoption of Irish Gaelic grammar rules to spoken English dialects, in various forms, across the island.

It seems "not useful" additions and replacements should be contrasted with similar constructs used for stress, humor, or other intentional purposes, such as:

"I abso -fuckin '- strongly agree!"
(tmesis, for stress)

"No-top -a little naked-- - nudity does not distract me."
(shm-reduplication, for humor)

The latter is the result of Yiddish influences on modern English, especially the East Coast US English.

Sometimes the editor and grammar stylist will use "pleonasme" to describe simple words. This phenomenon is also called prolixity or logorrhea. Comparing:

• "The sound of loud music drowns the sound of robbery."
• "Loud music drowns out robbery."

or maybe:

• "Music drowns the robbery."

The reader or listener does not need to be told that loud music has a voice, and in newspaper headlines or other abbreviated prose can even be relied upon to conclude that "robbery" is a proxy for "theft sound" and that music must be hard to drown, unless the robbery is relative silence (this is not a trivial matter, as it may affect the legal mistakes of the person who plays the music); the word "harsh" may imply that music should be played quietly if at all. Many are critical of overly abbreviated construction of "headline-itis" or "newsspeak", so "loud [music]" and "sound [theft]" in the above example may not be considered true as pleonastic or completely redundant, but just as information and clarification.

Prolixity is also used only to obscure, confuse, or underestimate and not always excessive or pleonastic in such constructions, though often so. "Post-traumatic stress disorder" (shock shell) and "pre-owned vehicle" (used car) are both heel euphemisms but not excessive. The redundant form, however, is very common in business, politics, and even academic language that is meant to sound impressive (or so vague as to make it difficult to determine what is actually promised, or misleading). For example: "This quarter, we are currently focused on determining innovative and innovative new methodologies and innovative frameworks for rapid expansion of customer-driven external programs designed and developed to bring the company's first paradigm to market as quickly as possible."

In contrast to redundancy, oxymoron results when two seemingly contradictory words are put together.

Other forms

Redundancy sometimes takes the form of foreign words which means repeated in context:

• "We go to El Restaurante restaurant ."
• " The hole La Brea tar is interesting."
• "Roast beef is served with au juice sauce ."
• " Please R. S.V.P. "
• "Schwarz wald Forest in and out."
• "The Drakens berg Mountains are located in South Africa."
• Packages Office office .
• The hoi polloi.

These sentences use meaningful phrases, respectively, "restaurant restaurant", "tar yang", "with juice sauce" and so on. However, often redundancy is necessary - especially when foreign words form the correct noun compared to common nouns. For example, "We go to Il Ristorante" is acceptable as long as the audience can conclude that it is a restaurant (if they understand Italian and English maybe, if spoken rather than written, misinterpreted as a general reference and not a proper noun, lead the listener to ask , "Which ristorante do you mean?" Such confusion is common in rich bilingual regions like Montreal or Southwest America when people mix phrases from two languages ​​at once). But avoiding redundancy of the Spanish phrase in the second example would leave only an awkward alternative: "La Brea's holes are interesting".

Most feel better not to drop articles when using proper nouns made from foreign languages:

• "The movie plays at Kapitan El Theater ."

It is also similar to the treatment of definite and unlimited articles in titles of books, movies, etc. Where the article could be - some would say should - be present where it should be "forbidden":

• "Stephen King ' s The Shine is scary."
  (Usually, articles will be left following possessives.)
• "I'm watching an American Werewolf movie in London at my home."
  (It seems to be double the article, which will be taken for stuttering or typographical errors in other contexts.)

Some cross-language redundancies, especially in placenames, occur because a word in one language becomes the title of a place elsewhere ( eg , Sahara Desert - "Sahara" is the English approach of the word for "desert" in Arabic). The extreme example that is supposed to be Bukit Torpenhow in Cumbria, if etymologized as a "hill" in the language of each culture that has lived in the area during recorded history, can be translated as "Hillhill Hill". See List of Tautologist places for more examples.

Acronyms can also be the basis of redundancies; this is known as humor as RAS syndrome (for Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome):

• "I forgot my PIN number for the ATM machine ." So it is actually written: "I forgot my Personal Identification number for the Automatic Teller Machine."
• "I am updating RAM memory on my computer."
• "She is infected with HIV virus ."
• "I installed the CMS system on my server."
• "Next year, I'll be climbing PCT Tracks ."

In all the examples listed above, the word after the acronym repeats the word represented in the acronym - respectively, "Personal Identification Number", "Machine Automatic Power Machine", "Random Access Memory Memory", "Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus", " Content Management System System ". (See RAS syndrome for more examples.) The expansion of acronyms such as PIN or HIV can be well-known by English speakers, but the acronym itself has been treated as words, so little thought is given for what extension (and "PIN" is also pronounced same as the word "pin": disambiguation is probably the source of "PIN number"; "SIN number" for "Social Insurance Number" [ sic ] is a common similar phrase in Canada.) But overreaction is more common with technical terms (eg computers) where well-informed speakers recognize redundancy and find it ridiculous or stupid, but mainstream users may not, because they may not be aware or sure of the full extension of acronyms like "RAM".

Some redundancy is just typography. For example, when an inflexible short word like "that" occurs at the end of a line, it is very common to accidentally repeat it at the beginning of a line, and a large number of readers do not even notice it.

Prudently built expressions, especially in poetry and political language, but also some common use in everyday conversation, may seem overdone but not. This is most common with cognitive objects (conjugated object verbs with verbs):

• "He goes to sleep deep sleep ."

Or, a classic example of Latin:

• mutatis mutandis = "with changes made to what needs to be changed" (ablative absolute construction)

Words do not need to be etymologically related, but only conceptually, to be perceived as examples of cognitive objects:

• "We cry tears joy."

Such construction is not really exaggerated (unlike "He sleeps soundly" or "We cry") because the object modifier provides additional information. A less rare, more constructed form is polyptoton, the style repetition of the same word or word that comes from the same root:

• "... [T] he only thing we should fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, "First Inaugural Address", March 1933.
• "Eagerly feed [,] food startled feeder ." - William Shakespeare, Richard II , II, me, 37.

As with cognitive objects, this construction is not exaggerated because repeated words or derivatives can not be erased without losing meaning or even destroying sentences, although in many cases they can be replaced with synonyms that are unrelated to the cost of force (eg, compare "One- the only thing we have to fear is terror. ")

src: slideplayer.com

Semantic and context pleonasms

In many cases of semantic pleonasm, the status of a word as pleonastic depends on context. The relevant context can be as local to the neighbor word, or as global as the speaker's level of knowledge. In fact, many examples of excessive expression are not inherently exaggerated, but can be redundant if used in one way, and not excessive if used in other ways. "Rise" in "climbing" is not always excessive, as in the example "He climbs and then falls to the mountain." Many other examples of excessive pleonasme only if the speaker's knowledge is taken into account. For example, most English speakers would agree that "tuna" is excessive because tuna is a type of fish. However, given the knowledge that "tuna" can also refer to the type of edible edible fruit, "fish" in "tuna" can be seen as non-pleonastic, but rather a disambiguator between fish and spiny pears.

In contrast, for English speakers who do not know Spanish, there is nothing exaggerated about "La Brea tar pits" because the name "La Brea" is opaque: the speaker does not know that it is Spanish for "tar". Similarly, although scuba stands for "complete underwater breathing apparatus", phrases such as "diving equipment" may not be considered pleonastic because "scuba" has been re-analyzed into English as a simple word, and not an abbreviation that suggests the word pleonastic sequence " tool equipment ". (Most do not even know that it is an acronym and do not spell SCUBA or S.C.U.B.A. See radar and laser for similar examples.)

src: pleonasm.eu

See also

src: www.anidescoala.ro

References

Quote

Bibliography

Smyth, Herbert Weir (1984) [1920]. "Ã,§3042". Greek Grammar (PDF) . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp.Ã, 681-682. ISBN 0-674-36250-0.

src: pleonasm.eu

External links

• Definition of dictionary about pleonasme in Wiktionary

Source of the article : Wikipedia