![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
wouldn't it still be called a download if the data was stored and transmitted analogly instead of digitally? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 10:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the strangeness of the concept of a physical tautology, I've deleted the example of a dart-board consisting of nothing but bullseyes, with it's explanation that it would be impossible to lose on such a board, as it displays ignorance of how to play the game. In actual fact it would be impossible to win on such a board, as it would have no areas on which to score a double. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.163.169 ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually you would, as the bullseye in darts is a double (double 25, the outer bull) so it would be possible to win. Whether it would be impossible to lose is another matter Franny-K ( talk) 19:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
For example preservable traits become more common and unpreserved traits become less common. The word preservable and the term more common are a synonymous play on words that alludes to the same observation that traits increase but it doesn't tell us the actual reason the traits become more common.
Why is this being deleted by Woland. Please motivate why this isn't a tautology because it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 ( talk) 17:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"Suddenly, without warning" is not a tautology and should be removed from the examples. "Suddenly" means it happened all at once, not necessarily without warning. In a square wave signal, the transitions happen suddenly, but are perfectly predictable, so are not without warning. It is just as easy to find examples of events that happen without warning, but which have a gradual onset. SpinningSpark 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This section is utter gibberish. Someone who a) knows what it is trying to say and b) can actually speak English needs to rewrite it. As I don't fall into category a (and someone argue I don't fall into b either) I've just chopped it out of the article and put it here.
Tautological expressions and propositions
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a redundancy ("unmarried" and "bachelor"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This expression is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent is not to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily verbose. The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried), on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". In an academic setting such as a peer-reviewed journal, propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech, however, is acceptable.
It just doesn't seem to actually say anything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.89.48 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a redundancy ("unmarried" and "bachelor"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This expression is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent is not to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily verbose. The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried), on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". In an academic setting such as a peer-reviewed journal, propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech, however, is acceptable. (Note that this passage was taken from a talk.origins discussion where Dr. John S. Wilkins recommended this insight on tautological propositions and expressions be the post of the month. I will post the original reference in due time.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.176.174 ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You probably meant that posts from Usenet are not valid references, would you motivate why? Usenet is just a forum like any other a place where one can express views which can be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.21.163 ( talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The translation here provided for "shibainu" is incorrect; "shiba" is a kind of reddish bush and does not mean "short hair." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkabouzu ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Because if I could prove it, I would get one of my friends who lives near a Tesco to get it for me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.50.240 ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the first sentence supposed to be meta and witty, or is it, um, unknowing? "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages)." Although "unnecessary and unessential" engaged my editorial instincts, I didn't actually start giggling till "different and dissimilar". Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I had to scroll through this lengthy discussion to see if anyone else had picked up on whomever's sense of humor. Said editor is probably wondering how long it'd take for the irony to register and be repaired. "Tautology ... is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages)." etc. Pattern maker ( talk) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I was disappointed recently when I added "cheaper prices" (ie. lower priced prices) as an example, only to have it removed on the basis of "trying to keep unreferenced examples out". My reason for including it was that it's one tautology that I encounter with alarming frequency in television commercials, billboards, junk mail, etc. Another tautology that I regularly encounter (and saw again just yesterday while researching new broadband plans) is "faster speed" (ie. higher speed speed).
It's even more disappointing when some of the examples that are given in the article are pretty obscure, and are far less likely to be encountered. Besides those examples being something to which people cannot relate as readily, we are doing nothing to educate people about the many examples of tautologies in popular usage, and are thus only exacerbating the problem by perpetuating their usage because nobody knows that they are incorrect.
In order to do a real-world comparison, I resorted to Google. I ran searches for various forms of the phrases from the "examples" section, plus my own two favourite examples, enclosing the strings in double-quotes. While I recognize that Google results aren't a definitive measure, it's one of the best ways we have of comparing those phrases' relative usage in popular culture. Here they are in descending order of popularity:
reason why (76,500,000); the reason why (28,800,000); free gift (22,900,000); cheapest price (6,490,000); first introduced (5,030,000); added bonus (3,610,000); cheapest prices (3,120,000); free gifts (3,120,000); was first introduced (2,090,000); cheaper price (1,770,000); new innovation (1,490,000); forward planning (1,250,000); faster speed (1,160,000); planning ahead (1,150,000); faster speeds (938,000); the reason is because (910,000); unsolved mysteries (788,000); new innovations (721,000); cheaper prices (527,000); unsolved mystery (388,000); fastest speed (320,000); fastest speeds (159,000); suddenly, without warning (61,600); sufficiently adequate (31,100); aromatic aroma (4,000).
Considering that my previous edit was reverted, perhaps someone else would care to edit the "examples" section accordingly, adding some of the more prevalent examples and, if brevity is important, removing some of those that are less prevalent. Ian Fieggen ( talk) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[B]ecause conclusions as to what is or is not a "tautology" will generally eminate from whomever is arbiting the proper parsing of the words at issue. And, for that reason, a significant element of interpersonal power-dynamics can infuse itself into definitional debates. In other words, if you are in control of the process, you can label something a tautology so as to better dismiss the opposition's position.
A good example of this is the article's contention that "free gift" is a tautology. To assert that such a phrase is always a "tautology" is to misframe an entire premise.
For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift" but it typically comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner.
It is simply false to say that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached and the mere act of saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Another flawed example in the article is "suddenly, without warning". If two armies oppose each other in the field and one commander sends the opposition a warning message as follows "I instruct you to retreat or I will attack", any subsequent attact, sudden or otherwise, was warned. "Sudden" means "happening or coming unexpectedly". But as any student of military history can certainly tell you; via effective deception, any attack can be seen as "sudden", even if fair warning was previously given.
I could go on, but I'd rather not be verbosely redundant in a circular or overbearing manner of speaking exessively.
216.153.214.89 ( talk) 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
"Torpenhow Hill" (Hill-hill-hill Hill, in four languages). Really? What languages are these? Hey, I only see two words here! Gingermint ( talk) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It was featured on a UK TV Quiz Show "QI"; each syllable was said to mean Hill. However, similar to Townsville City, it's a proper noun not an argument. This is before we get onto the matter of " Tor" having two slightly different meanings in Old English. I can not find any definitions of the Welsh word "Pen" or the Danish "How" for fairly obvious reasons. Just adding my 2 cents on this. SpunkyLM ( talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
See this excellent article here http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+debunking+of+Torpenhow+Hill.-a098250320 which debunks the "Torpenhow Hill" myth. 86.150.144.231 ( talk) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I went off and closed this after I previewed it, but before I saved it. Now I'm rushing because I must be off. Sorry!
On my talk page, Si Trew wrote:
The thing is, any reasonable source on etymology contradicts that. A little bit of Latin contradicts that. A little bit of Middle English contradicts that. Bill Bryson is not a source on etymology. He might say things, but he's a travel writer. He's not meant to be scientifically rigorous, and he's not an example of a proper source. "Except" comes via Middle English from Latin exceptus = "taken out". This in turn comes from excipere = "take out". This in its turn comes from ex+capere = "out+take". The vowel change is nothing special; such things happen in Indo-European languages all the time. The change in the "c" from meaning [s] or [k] is actually a feature of English and varies in modern Romance languages; in Latin back when it was spoken, they were both pronounced /k/. The word yclept meant "was called" from clepen "to be called". Plus, yclept wasn't an Old English word at any point in time, but a Middle English word. This doesn't mean the idea behind the point is false, of course, but it is suggestive of the quality of the source. (In Old English, the equivalent of the y- prefix was ge-; in Early Modern English, it was a--, and by now it's been completely deleted—there's no way for it to become "ex-".)
The etymology of "except" from Old English is in fact "absolutely" false, and even if it weren't, the phrase would mean "save and having been called", which is clearly not redundant and so would be completely irrelevant to the article.
— Felix the Cassowary 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
wouldn't it still be called a download if the data was stored and transmitted analogly instead of digitally? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 10:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the strangeness of the concept of a physical tautology, I've deleted the example of a dart-board consisting of nothing but bullseyes, with it's explanation that it would be impossible to lose on such a board, as it displays ignorance of how to play the game. In actual fact it would be impossible to win on such a board, as it would have no areas on which to score a double. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.163.169 ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually you would, as the bullseye in darts is a double (double 25, the outer bull) so it would be possible to win. Whether it would be impossible to lose is another matter Franny-K ( talk) 19:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
For example preservable traits become more common and unpreserved traits become less common. The word preservable and the term more common are a synonymous play on words that alludes to the same observation that traits increase but it doesn't tell us the actual reason the traits become more common.
Why is this being deleted by Woland. Please motivate why this isn't a tautology because it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 ( talk) 17:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"Suddenly, without warning" is not a tautology and should be removed from the examples. "Suddenly" means it happened all at once, not necessarily without warning. In a square wave signal, the transitions happen suddenly, but are perfectly predictable, so are not without warning. It is just as easy to find examples of events that happen without warning, but which have a gradual onset. SpinningSpark 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This section is utter gibberish. Someone who a) knows what it is trying to say and b) can actually speak English needs to rewrite it. As I don't fall into category a (and someone argue I don't fall into b either) I've just chopped it out of the article and put it here.
Tautological expressions and propositions
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a redundancy ("unmarried" and "bachelor"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This expression is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent is not to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily verbose. The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried), on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". In an academic setting such as a peer-reviewed journal, propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech, however, is acceptable.
It just doesn't seem to actually say anything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.89.48 ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a redundancy ("unmarried" and "bachelor"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This expression is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent is not to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily verbose. The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried), on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". In an academic setting such as a peer-reviewed journal, propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech, however, is acceptable. (Note that this passage was taken from a talk.origins discussion where Dr. John S. Wilkins recommended this insight on tautological propositions and expressions be the post of the month. I will post the original reference in due time.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.176.174 ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You probably meant that posts from Usenet are not valid references, would you motivate why? Usenet is just a forum like any other a place where one can express views which can be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.21.163 ( talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The translation here provided for "shibainu" is incorrect; "shiba" is a kind of reddish bush and does not mean "short hair." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkabouzu ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Because if I could prove it, I would get one of my friends who lives near a Tesco to get it for me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.50.240 ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the first sentence supposed to be meta and witty, or is it, um, unknowing? "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages)." Although "unnecessary and unessential" engaged my editorial instincts, I didn't actually start giggling till "different and dissimilar". Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I had to scroll through this lengthy discussion to see if anyone else had picked up on whomever's sense of humor. Said editor is probably wondering how long it'd take for the irony to register and be repaired. "Tautology ... is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing (often originally from different languages)." etc. Pattern maker ( talk) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I was disappointed recently when I added "cheaper prices" (ie. lower priced prices) as an example, only to have it removed on the basis of "trying to keep unreferenced examples out". My reason for including it was that it's one tautology that I encounter with alarming frequency in television commercials, billboards, junk mail, etc. Another tautology that I regularly encounter (and saw again just yesterday while researching new broadband plans) is "faster speed" (ie. higher speed speed).
It's even more disappointing when some of the examples that are given in the article are pretty obscure, and are far less likely to be encountered. Besides those examples being something to which people cannot relate as readily, we are doing nothing to educate people about the many examples of tautologies in popular usage, and are thus only exacerbating the problem by perpetuating their usage because nobody knows that they are incorrect.
In order to do a real-world comparison, I resorted to Google. I ran searches for various forms of the phrases from the "examples" section, plus my own two favourite examples, enclosing the strings in double-quotes. While I recognize that Google results aren't a definitive measure, it's one of the best ways we have of comparing those phrases' relative usage in popular culture. Here they are in descending order of popularity:
reason why (76,500,000); the reason why (28,800,000); free gift (22,900,000); cheapest price (6,490,000); first introduced (5,030,000); added bonus (3,610,000); cheapest prices (3,120,000); free gifts (3,120,000); was first introduced (2,090,000); cheaper price (1,770,000); new innovation (1,490,000); forward planning (1,250,000); faster speed (1,160,000); planning ahead (1,150,000); faster speeds (938,000); the reason is because (910,000); unsolved mysteries (788,000); new innovations (721,000); cheaper prices (527,000); unsolved mystery (388,000); fastest speed (320,000); fastest speeds (159,000); suddenly, without warning (61,600); sufficiently adequate (31,100); aromatic aroma (4,000).
Considering that my previous edit was reverted, perhaps someone else would care to edit the "examples" section accordingly, adding some of the more prevalent examples and, if brevity is important, removing some of those that are less prevalent. Ian Fieggen ( talk) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[B]ecause conclusions as to what is or is not a "tautology" will generally eminate from whomever is arbiting the proper parsing of the words at issue. And, for that reason, a significant element of interpersonal power-dynamics can infuse itself into definitional debates. In other words, if you are in control of the process, you can label something a tautology so as to better dismiss the opposition's position.
A good example of this is the article's contention that "free gift" is a tautology. To assert that such a phrase is always a "tautology" is to misframe an entire premise.
For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift" but it typically comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner.
It is simply false to say that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached and the mere act of saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Another flawed example in the article is "suddenly, without warning". If two armies oppose each other in the field and one commander sends the opposition a warning message as follows "I instruct you to retreat or I will attack", any subsequent attact, sudden or otherwise, was warned. "Sudden" means "happening or coming unexpectedly". But as any student of military history can certainly tell you; via effective deception, any attack can be seen as "sudden", even if fair warning was previously given.
I could go on, but I'd rather not be verbosely redundant in a circular or overbearing manner of speaking exessively.
216.153.214.89 ( talk) 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
"Torpenhow Hill" (Hill-hill-hill Hill, in four languages). Really? What languages are these? Hey, I only see two words here! Gingermint ( talk) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It was featured on a UK TV Quiz Show "QI"; each syllable was said to mean Hill. However, similar to Townsville City, it's a proper noun not an argument. This is before we get onto the matter of " Tor" having two slightly different meanings in Old English. I can not find any definitions of the Welsh word "Pen" or the Danish "How" for fairly obvious reasons. Just adding my 2 cents on this. SpunkyLM ( talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
See this excellent article here http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+debunking+of+Torpenhow+Hill.-a098250320 which debunks the "Torpenhow Hill" myth. 86.150.144.231 ( talk) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I went off and closed this after I previewed it, but before I saved it. Now I'm rushing because I must be off. Sorry!
On my talk page, Si Trew wrote:
The thing is, any reasonable source on etymology contradicts that. A little bit of Latin contradicts that. A little bit of Middle English contradicts that. Bill Bryson is not a source on etymology. He might say things, but he's a travel writer. He's not meant to be scientifically rigorous, and he's not an example of a proper source. "Except" comes via Middle English from Latin exceptus = "taken out". This in turn comes from excipere = "take out". This in its turn comes from ex+capere = "out+take". The vowel change is nothing special; such things happen in Indo-European languages all the time. The change in the "c" from meaning [s] or [k] is actually a feature of English and varies in modern Romance languages; in Latin back when it was spoken, they were both pronounced /k/. The word yclept meant "was called" from clepen "to be called". Plus, yclept wasn't an Old English word at any point in time, but a Middle English word. This doesn't mean the idea behind the point is false, of course, but it is suggestive of the quality of the source. (In Old English, the equivalent of the y- prefix was ge-; in Early Modern English, it was a--, and by now it's been completely deleted—there's no way for it to become "ex-".)
The etymology of "except" from Old English is in fact "absolutely" false, and even if it weren't, the phrase would mean "save and having been called", which is clearly not redundant and so would be completely irrelevant to the article.
— Felix the Cassowary 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |