Talk:pleonasm

Does pleonasm denote a particular redundant form?

But seriously folks, I wonder if my cute example is actually relevant. From browsing, it appears pleonasm might denote a particular redundant form and not just any random verbosity. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -dmh 03:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the OED definition, it looks like your definition is correct. It doesn't mention anything about something specific, in fact according to the OED there's a few more definitions. But Wiktionary isn't the OED and we don't need every definition imaginable. There's even a word pleonasmic which seems entirely unnecessary. --w:user:eean

"To have and to hold"

It would seem to me that "to have and to hold" is not necessarily a pleonasm : one can possess (have) something without taking the actions necessary to preserve it (to hold). — This comment was unsigned.

"They are both the same"

The given example seems incorrect in my view (as it is incomplete and can also describe non-redundant situations):
"They are both the same" is a pleonasm as the word "both" is redundant (...)
 The 3rd-person, personal pronoun "They" does not refer only to two persons, items, concepts etc., rather to any group comprising more elements than one.
(I am not an English mothertongue speaker though).

For all cases that "They" refers to groups/sets comprising more than 2 elements, the term "both" gives the additional information that an (identical) subset of exactly two elemts are meant.
In these cases neither "both" nor "they" render each other redundant and the example is wrong. Tommie 12:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can only use "both" if the "they" already refers to exactly two elements; if the "they" refers to more than two elements, and you mean just a two-element subset of it, you have to say "two of them" ("they both" = "both of them" = "all two of them", though "all two of them" isn't natural). The normal use of "both" is to emphasize a parallel; if you say, "they were both raised in the South", you're making clear that you view this as a point of similarity, and you're also making clear that they aren't, like, siblings or something. ("They were raised in the South" could imply that they were raised together in the South, whereas the "both" makes clear that they were not.) However, "they are both the same" is redundant and awkward (assuming it's the entire sentence), because all of the features of "both" are implied either by "the same" or by the known two-ness of the referent. Do you see what I mean? —Ruakh_TALK 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker I agree with the non-native speaker in this instance - surely the distinction between 'They are both the same' and 'They are all the same' is both a necessary and critical observation - the example should be removed or substituted — This comment was unsigned.

I have changed the example to "the two of them are both the same", which definitely involves redundancy. Equinox ◑ 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"ATM machine"

Our definition of ATM machine says it is a pleonasm since the M already stands for machine. Seems like a good example to me. RJFJR (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there...

Just appreciating the fact that definition 2 is itself pleonastic. Nicely done. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics citation

I have removed the following citation:

Dec 14, 2007, Ryan North, Dinosaur Comics

pleonasm is the additional and extra use of added, spare, unnecessary, redundant (superfluous or surplus), unneeded, and uncalled-for words in addition to, and on top of, what is necessary or essential. Or required. Or obligatory or vital or requisite or crucial. Or needed?

I cannot find the quoted passage in the comic itself or in text anywhere on the comic's current page or its 2009 archive, and Google hits seem to be recursive results. If anyone can find a reliable reference that shows this specific text that would be appreciated. 93 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@93 Click on "contact" at the top. It becomes the email subject (...which probably should not be a source of citations) —suzukaze (t・c) 07:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)