Review of Audition 3 in Norwegian press!

And considering a definition of tautology is needless repetition, the original statement may not be tautological at all. (Although the second and third repetitions are probably a little unnecessary).

Well I've checked several sources, and none of them mention 'needless'. The Collins dictionary has it pretty much as you give it, but needless is replaced by 'merely'...

(I need to find better ways of using my time!)

Reading dictionaries?   

Well I've checked several sources, and none of them mention 'needless'. The Collins dictionary has it pretty much as you give it, but needless is replaced by 'merely'...

Well, the best source for an Aussie (where we don't think too highly of English dictionaries  ) is "The MacQuarie Encyclopedic Dictionary". It says: "needless repetition of an idea, esp. in other words in the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness".

or http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautology

or http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tautology

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology (the rhetoric definition obviously) is in a similar vein

I could go on (in fact I could quote from an English dictionary I've had for years), but you may find it a little repetitious.

(I need to find better ways of using my time!)

Reading dictionaries?   

I'm embarrassed to admit that I'd read the MacQuarie definition before my previous post, but then it looks like Steve and I have something in common - reading dictionaries.

Now, back to the cricket - much more rivetting!

Burchfield in Fowler's Modern English Usage writes, after quoting a citation from the OED including the word odious: "Odious, indeed, provided that the repetition has gone unnoticed or unintended by the writer or speaker".  Otherwise it may be merely, as the OED says, "a fault of style", if not used deliberately as a rhetorical device.

Paul
(who also reads dictionaries, and much besides)

Otherwise it may be merely, as the OED says, "a fault of style", if not used deliberately as a rhetorical device.

That's better, but even that (as it stands*) falls foul of making a judgement about how the word should be used as well as defining it - and that's the problem with any of the definitions that use 'unnecessary'. My old Concise Oxford gets it more correctly; "Saying of the same thing twice over in different words", and even that doesn't allow for multiple repetitions.

There are two points here - the word is derived from the Greek 'Tauto' meaning 'same', and that clears up the definition. If you add the 'logic' part to the end, you still don't end up with it meaning any differently - it's just been put into the context of a statement.

If you add the word 'unnecessary' in front of repetition, then you have effectively turned the definition into a syllogism, and that's just plain bad form.

And talking about Fowler - well, he made a very specific judgement about tautology in 'The King's English'. He said "...mutual friends, though not nonsense, is bad english, because it is tautological". He only gets away with this because it isn't a definition of the word.

* I'm quite happy with Eric Partridge's statement in Usage and Abusage though. He provides the rest of Paul's quoted definition from the OED itself, rather than the concise edition. That says 'a repetition of the same statement' or 'the repetition (especially in the immediate context) of the same word or phrase, or the same idea or statement in other words: usually as a fault of style'. Please note the word usually... this effectively dissociates that statement from the definition itself.

I may have fallen foul of the latter part of the definition myself... but at least I didn't make a value judgement in defining the word, as many of the lesser sources do. 'Unnecessary' is exactly what it says it is in this context!

My old Concise Oxford gets it more correctly; "Saying of the same thing twice over in different words"...

From which it follows that repetition used for emphasis is a tautology. If so then I must retire from this discussion. However, common usage in my limited experience, qualifies the repetition as "needless" or "unnecessary" or a "fault of style". If this associates a value judgement with the definition then so be it. If you accuse somebody of being tautological are you not making a value judgement? If you are simply saying that they've repeated themselves wouldn't that be totally, utterly, absolutely and completely unnecessary? Blind Freddy could see that.

There are two points here - the word is derived from the Greek 'Tauto' meaning 'same', and that clears up the definition. If you add the 'logic' part to the end, you still don't end up with it meaning any differently - it's just been put into the context of a statement.

Yes of course.

If you add the word 'unnecessary' in front of repetition, then you have effectively turned the definition into a syllogism, and that's just plain bad form.

No you haven't, and even if you had, no it isn't (IMHO - but then, that's just a value judgement).

And now I'm off to the cricket for the day. The Aussies have made a good recovery and there's the strong possibility of seeing Tendulkar bat later in the day in what may be his last test match at the SCG.

If you accuse somebody of being tautological are you not making a value judgement?

No. You would merely be ascribing a value to what they have said or written, not judging it; recognising it for what it is, but no more than that. You'd only be judging it if you added a judgemental qualifier - like 'unnecessary' - the judgement would be that you thought that it was unnecessary when the writer of it obviously didn't.

As for the syllogism:

No you haven't, and even if you had, no it isn't (IMHO - but then, that's just a value judgement).

If you look up the definition of a hypothetical syllogism, you will find that 'unnecessary repetition' implies that a deduction might be made that all tautology is unneccessary. That's why I said that it is effectively a syllogism - in an absolute sense it isn't, but as deductive reasoning it might be seen as one. And it wasn't a value judgement you made - it was merely a lack of understanding of what I was implying - and that is almost certainly my fault for not making it clearer.

If you accuse somebody of being tautological are you not making a value judgement?

No.

Actually, yes.  You have been insisting that the dictionaries define the word without value judgement - but it's not as simple as that.  Remember that the purpose of a dictionary is not to define, but to record the usage of words; and the usage of a word encompasses not only the meaning, but the manner in which it is used.  Saying that a tautology is simply repetition doesn't cut it - the word is distinguished from "repetition" precisely because it is commonly used specifically in the cases where this is seen by the user as unnecessary or bad style; and that judgement is part of what the dictionaries record, and part of what you express when you use the word.

Paul

I agree with Paul 100%. Now, you could make a case for that statement being a tautology, but that's OK, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of this discussion. (Oh... that one too).

As for the syllogism, I follow Steve's reasoning, and accept it as a point of view (it was a handy loophole in the original statement). But I think we may continue to hold different points of view.

I agree with Paul 100%.

Well I don't - and I don't think that Lewis Carroll really did either. He certainly wouldn't have accepted what dictionaries had to say about usage...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Good dictionaries distinguish between meanings and judgements. Any that don't are rather inferior. Which is why the OED distinguishes between the meaning of tautology and a potential use of it. QED.

Remember what the dormouse said...

Remember what the dormouse said...

Would that be before or after he got his head stuffed in a teapot? 

[published or otherwise recorded use of English]

Dormouse quotation in context I think his head was fed something stronger than tea, but draw your own conclusions.

One of which should be that my rather facetious comment could be translated as "What was Lewis Carrol smoking when he wrote that?"

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Would that be before or after the great fall?

Just because Lewis Carroll ascribed those words to an egg doesn't lead us to any conclusion at all as to what Charles Dodgson really thought.

But if, like Humpty, we are free to choose our own meanings for words, then I choose:

Tautology: "needless repetition of an idea," etc. etc.

Incidentally, my two editions of the Oxford both have: "the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, especially as a fault of style." So the definition and the usage are separated in this case by "especially". But really, we shouldn't use a dictionary as our authority and take part of what it says in support of our argument and conveniently dismiss the other part. The OED editors thought it was important to include both parts - who are we to say otherwise?

Good dictionaries distinguish between meanings and judgements. Any that don't are rather inferior. Which is why the OED distinguishes between the meaning of tautology and a potential use of it. QED.

QED means that the original point has been proven. So we have proven that "Good dictionaries distinguish between meanings and judgements." (Although I think that should be between definitions and usage.) I'm glad, but back to the discussion at hand...

I'm saying that the use of "tautology" implies a value judgement. By including "...fault of style" the OED shows itself to be in agreement. The statement:

OTOH, I don't think that anybody's ascribed a new meaning to the word 'tautology'... 

appeared to be making a value judgement on

...totally, utterly, absolutely and completely...

and it would be stretching credibility somewhat to invoke a loophole here...

So forgive me for believing that value judgement is an essential part of this current "tautology" discussion.




The OED has always been about usage:

The OED's guiding principle, the principle that has set it apart from most other dictionaries, is its rigorous dependence on gathering quotations from the published or otherwise recorded use of English, and employing them to illustrate the sense of every single word in the language. The reason behind this unusual and tremendously labour-intensive style of editing and compiling was both bold and simple: by gathering and publishing selected quotations, the Dictionary could demonstrate the full range of characteristics of each and every word with a very great degree of precision. Quotations could show exactly how a word has been employed over the centuries, how it has undergone subtle changes of shades of meaning, or spelling, or pronunciation, and, perhaps most important of all, how and more exactly when each word was slipped into the language in the first place. No other means of dictionary compilation could do such a thing: only by finding and showing examples could the full range of a word's past possibilities be explored.

Italics are in the original, my bold.

But if, like Humpty, we are free to choose our own meanings for words, then I choose:

Tautology: "needless repetition of an idea," etc. etc.

That's fine - but my original use didn't make a judgement. It was merely an observation, but perhaps one that might have lead others to draw their own conclusions. But to ascribe your conclusion to mine might well have been a mistake - I very clearly didn't indicate what I thought about it, quite deliberately. You may have thought that there were perhaps clues in my comments about journalists, but in general they don't employ that much tautology, achieving their mischief in other ways. (No, that does not mean that I think tautology = mischief!)

I'm saying that the use of "tautology" implies a value judgement. By including "...fault of style" the OED shows itself to be in agreement. The statement:

OTOH, I don't think that anybody's ascribed a new meaning to the word 'tautology'... 

appeared to be making a value judgement on

...totally, utterly, absolutely and completely...

and it would be stretching credibility somewhat to invoke a loophole here...

So forgive me for believing that value judgement is an essential part of this current "tautology" discussion.

You can believe that - no problem. But you'd be putting words into my mouth that I didn't use - because I can distinguish between a definition and one particular value-loaded usage of it. So whilst you are free to ascribe whatever value judgement you like to the statement, it will be yours, not mine.

But more importantly, in fact it wasn't a judgement about the tautological statement at all - it was rather more of a comment on the foregoing few posts where quite a few word meanings had had their history distorted. My comment was that in this context, tautology hadn't. Although if we left it to BFM, it would probably have had a completely different root and mean whatever he meant it to - which as a self-proclaimed journalist could have been anything at all!

At this point, BFM probably thinks he's scored a journalistic hit, in causing us all to discuss his use of the language. Well maybe he has - but this example hasn't exactly added anything to the sum of knowledge in the world, has it? Which is almost invariably the case with non-specialist journalism. Just what we need more of - not...

... It was merely an observation, but perhaps one that might have lead others to draw their own conclusions. But to ascribe your conclusion to mine might well have been a mistake - I very clearly didn't indicate what I thought about it, quite deliberately.

Yep! That's the loophole I dared you to invoke! And yes, it did seem to be deliberately provided! 

You can believe that - no problem. But you'd be putting words into my mouth that I didn't use - because I can distinguish between a definition and one particular value-loaded usage of it. So whilst you are free to ascribe whatever value judgement you like to the statement, it will be yours, not mine.

Yes, I certainly did do all of those things, and in a similar position I'd do the same again. What you were thinking (now clarified) appeared to be an implied value judgement, and on re-reading (without said clarification) still does.

Actually, in all seriousness, if I'd not seen it as a value judgement I'd have kept right out of it.

At this point, BFM probably thinks he's scored a journalistic hit, in causing us all to discuss his use of the language.

Nah! he's just provided us with the opportunity to have a bit of fun. 

Yes, I certainly did do all of those things, and in a similar position I'd do the same again. What you were thinking (now clarified) appeared to be an implied value judgement, and on re-reading (without said clarification) still does.

Well, all I can say is that this demonstrates is that you've fallen totally foul of (i.e. proved completely) Osmo Wiio's rule 3 of communication, and partially of several others as well.... 

You can read the lot of them here - enjoy!

And, this nearly gets us back to Norway - but not quite.