We
are totally surrounded (on all sides) by redundancies.
By
Howard
Richler
I first
became aware of a penchant for political verbal diarrhea back in
1993. CBC journalist Hana Gartner was interviewing then Prime
Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien who asserted that he was respected
by most Quebecers, and that it was only the “intellectual
intelligentsia” who disparaged him.
Chrétien
was following in the flowing tradition exemplified by fellow
politicians. President Calvin Coolidge once opined that “When large
numbers of men are unable to find work, unemployment results.” The
man who provided impeachment insurance for George Herbert Bush,
former Vice President Dan Quayle, said in a 1988 speech, “I got
through a number of things in the area of defense, like showing the
importance of cruise missiles and getting them more accurate so that
we can have precise precision.” In 2012, Brian Pallister, leader
of tbe Progressive Conservative party in Manitoba, expressed his hope
that “Everyone will enjoy themselves this holiday season, even you
infidel atheists.”
These are some of the more egregious examples of
redundant language but yea, we are not drowning in a bog of
unnecessary words, but in a veritable swampland. Why can't things be
merely null, why do they have to be void as well? If I look in every
nook, must I explore every cranny? Must I desist when I cease, abet
when I aid, choose when I pick and rave when I rant? Can't I just
cease, aid, pick and rant? When we talk about “complete
anihilation,” “frozen tundra,” “close proximity,” and a
“woman pregnant with child,” I ponder, what are the alternatives?
Have you ever seen a young geezer, a cold water heater,
a non-tuna fish, a non-living survivor, or a non-lazy bum? I've
smelled, with my own nose, different bouquets but the only type I've
ever seen, with my own eyes, is the flowery variety.
Am
I paranoid, or is there some secret of time only I can't intuit?
Samuel Goldwyn said, “I never make predictions, especially about
the future” and the hoi polloi are constantly referring to “future
plans,” and “advance warning.” This implies there are
alternatives like past plans and a past future.The past is equally
beguiling. Why do we specify “past experience” and “never
before”? Aren't all experiences “past”? Why does “before”
have to be added to “never”? Is there a hidden quantum dimension
called the “never after” waiting to be unearthed by string
theory? I worry when someone tells me the “honest truth,” or
gives me a “garden salad” to eat, or something “100 per cent
pure” to drink. Does that mean that if they only tell me the truth
or ply me with a mere salad or a beverage that's only 99.99 per cent
pure that I'm in “serious danger”? Do I overaxaggerate? Please
R.S.V.P so I can overcome my state of uneasy anxiety.
Mercifully, it takes but a single word to describe
verbal redundancy. The term is “pleonasm” defined by the OED
as “the use of more words in a sentence than are necessary to
express the meaning.” It derived from the Latin pleonasmus
which, in turn,
came from the Greek pleonasmos
(more-ness). Antony's line in Julius
Caesar, “the most unkindest cut of all,”
is an example of a pleonasm done for effect, as is the biblical “I
am that I am.” In any case, after what happened to Lot's wife,
Moses was probably
squeamish about accusing the Burning Bush of redundancy.
Most pleonasms, however, are not so stylish and only
denote poor form. “Could you repeat that again?” is an example of
a commonly used pleonasm. A redundancy can be avoided by just saying
either,“Could you repeat that?” Don't say “each and every”
and “at this point in time” when “every” and “at this time”
suffice, nor say “she is a woman who” when “she is” will do,
or use “if and when” when only “if” is required.
Perhaps
I'm just an unprogressive conservative who pines for the halcyon days
when you didn’t need to qualify that a gift was free, a victim
innocent, a record new, and scholarship academic. In the past, one
didn't have to specify strictly private or natural grass. Then
again, some pleonasms like “cash money” and “disposable
garbage” have evolved into possible states of non-redundancy. Some
might say that in the past “heterosexual sex” was pleonastic.
Unfortunately, a former pleonasm,“healthy tan,” has mutated into
an oxymoronic state in our ozone-depleted world.
So, who is to blame? As I live and breathe, I think I
can pinpoint the party responsible for our modern orgy of redundancy.
To paraphrase
Zola, J'accuse
Raid Bug Repellant. They unveiled the slogan
“Raid kills bugs dead” in 1966. To keep pace with
this linguistic overkill, other advertisements stressed
products that were “new innovations,” and “very unique.”
McDonald's isn't
content to sell billions of hamburgers but “billions and billions.”
and Soft Soap Body Wash doesn’t
merely make you “clean,” you become “more than just clean.”
And don't think the pleonastic process only flows towards
aggrandizement. Isn't a dot miniscule enough? Must we endure
microdots?
N.B. (Making a duplicate copy in any shape or form
without my express, intended permission, and authorization is totally
and utterly allowed, and indeed more preferable than alternative
options.)
Excerpted from
Howard's upcoming book Arranged & Deranged Wit.
No comments:
Post a Comment