Deja Vu All Over Again

  

NOTE: Today I'm posting, mostly because of laziness, a modified version of a column I posted here at SleuthSayers almost 14 years ago. And since I'm recycling it, its title should probably be "Deja Vu All Over Again, All Over Again." But I'll leave well enough alone. Here goes . . .

Some time ago, I heard a newsman on National Public Radio say that someone "shared this in common" with someone else. That wording bothered me. (Not enough to make me move the dial to a rap or gospel music station, but it did bother me.) I've forgotten exactly who he said was sharing something in common with whom, but--to use an example--if you and your father are both baseball fans, you either share a love of baseball with your father or you and your father have that in common. You don't share it in common, and if you say you do, you've created a redundancy. 

This kind of error can probably be forgiven more easily in speech than in writing. We writers are supposed to know better. (And so are NPR newscasters.) Not that I am guiltless. Right here in this blog, I can remember using the term added bonus--which is a little silly. If it's a bonus, it is by definition added, so to use both words is redundant. And in real life I'm always talking about something happening the exact same way it happened earlier. Other phrases I use a lot are final outcome, plan ahead, and free gift. Imagine how much time I could save and how much smarter I could sound if I cut out the words exact, final, ahead, and free.

Alternative choices

I know what you're thinking. Sometimes phrases containing redundancies are used intentionally, to add emphasis. Examples: completely surrounded, truly sincere, each and every, definite decision, cease and desist, direct confrontation, forever and ever, and so on. Redundancies also come into play when using certain abbreviations, like UPC code, HIV virus, please RSVP, iOS operating system, and AC current. My favorite is PIN number. But I still use the term. The technically correct PI number just wouldn't roll well off the tongue, unless maybe you're referring to a phonebook listing for Philip Marlowe, or how many peach cobblers your aunt Bertha made this year.

A working awareness of this kind of thing can be handy to writers, because cutting out redundancies provides us with another way to "write tight." An argument can even be made that such common and inoffensive phrases as sit down, stand up, nod your head, or shrug your shoulders are literary overkill as well, and do nothing except add extra work. Why not just say (or write) sit, stand, nod, and shrug? Where else would you stand but up? What else would you shrug except your shoulders? (Wait, don't answer that.)

Unintentional Mistakes

Even if you're not a writer, here are a few more redundancies that come to mind:

twelve noon

sum total

commute back and forth

mental telepathy

advance reservations

drowned to death

merge together

observe by watching

armed gunman

visible to the eye

hot-water heater

overexaggerate

false pretense

hollow tube

disappear from sight

myself personally

a future prediction 

safe haven

during the course of

regular routine

a variety of different items

filled to capacity

pre-recorded

a pair of twins

unexpected surprise*

the reason is because

originally created

red in color

few in number

poisonous venom

* could also mean a pair of twins

Do you ever find yourself using these (or similar) phrases when you speak? More importantly, do you embarrass yourself by using them when you write? I try to watch for, and correct, them in my own manuscript, but I'm sure some of them manage to make it through intact. Can you think of others I forgot to mention? Are there any that you find particularly irritating?

The end result

Time for a confession: I will probably (and happily) continue to use many of these redundancies in everyday conversation, and even in writing if they're a part of dialogue. Sometimes they just "sound right." But I wouldn't want to use them in a column like this one.

In point of fact, lest any of you protest against forward progress, past history reveals an unconfirmed rumor that a knowledge of repetitious redundancy is an absolute, necessary essential, and that the issue might possibly grow in size to be a difficult dilemma. If there are any questions about the basic fundamentals, I'll be glad to revert back and spell it out in detail. And even repeat it again.

Or maybe postpone it until later.

I'll close with a quote from my fellow SleuthSayer Robert Lopresti: "This program was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department, which brought you this program."