Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)/Archive 2009

Download is only digital?
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)

Darts as an example of physical tautology
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)

Preservable traits becoming more common
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)


 * Actually, its not a tautology because preservable and more common are in no way synonymous. I have no idea why you continually try to tell English speakers what words mean in their own language when you clearly do not understand English to the degree required to even begin to do this.


 * Please read wikipedia policy on original research. I removed a number of unreferenced examples of tautologies that you made up in your head and added to this article. You can't just think up examples of things and add them to articles. Articles are supposed to be based on  reliable sources.


 * You are also a sockpuppet of User:TongueSpeaker and you have an established antievolutionary and pro-creationist agenda that you continue to insert into both related and unrelated articles, violating  NPOV policy. I am unsure if you simply don't understand the policies of wikipedia or if you are intentionally and repeatedly breaking the rules. Either way I would suggest again that you read the actual policies above and make an effort to follow them before disciplinary action is taken against you. Ciao. --Woland (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Disciplinary action? Yet I wrote virtually the whole substance of the tautology article because I am TongueSpeaker just not logged in. My agenda is obviously creationist but this doesn't invalidate what I have posted on the concept of a tautology neither does it confirm because the arguments must stand or fall by their own weight. You are actually committing a logical fallacy. I said "synonymous play on words", obviously preserve and more common are not dictionary defined synonyms. The issue is that any terms or words whether they are dictionary antonyms or synonyms or totally unrelated as semantically defined in a dictionary can allude to the same concept if formulated in a specific way in a sentence. Because the issue is pragmatics which is a higher layer of abstraction then semantics. Semantics are the means of communicating our pragmatics just like the Session layer, data layer are there to get to the ultimate application layer in the OSI model. Rhetorical tautology, logical tautology, logical validity, tautological proposition, tautological expression are the terms we have to use to define multiple concepts. The concept I am alluding to is the deceptive formulation of a world view in such a manner that it cannot be disputed (Darwin's exact term) or that the truth is guaranteed. Thus for example we need to define the difference between a tautological proposition and expression.


 * I can't understand 99% of what you say but (1) admitting that you have a creationist agenda and pursuing that agenda is a direct violation of wikipedia policy and could (will) get you banned, (2)"synonymous play on words" does not make sense in English (3) the "pragmatics" for preserve and more common aren't synonymous in this context either, you just don't understand the concept of  context.


 * As for your edits to this article: They are nearly incomprehensible and are just things that you made up without drawing from secondary sources. If you want to edit an article on Tautologies you should read some books and articles that talk about them and then, directly using the information in said texts with in text citations, add referenced material. Not add things that are largely based on your inability to grasp the English language. Hey, why not work on the Afrikaans wikipedia? --Woland (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate what Wolans stated preserve and more common aren't ever, even slightly, synonymous, in any context, ever.86.31.48.120 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They could be depending on the Pragmatics, see http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for my notes on this.


 * I would agree that "preservable" and "more common" are not synonymous. "Preservable" refers to things that can be preserved, such as traits that allow for survival and reproductive success, which does not necessarily mean they are common. The observation that said traits do become more common is not tautological. And yes, we all have our beliefs (or "agendas" as some might call them), but we must (and should be able to) abide by the neutral point of view policy. Addressing, indeed your arguments must stand or fall by their own weight, but remember this is not a place for original research. Perhaps your ideas are good, but they belong elsewhere. If you can find a reliable source that claims that such a statement is tautological, then place it with the proper citation. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly, without warning
"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.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to my Collins Dictionary: Sudden = "occurring or performed quickly and without warning". I also looked up sudden in dictionary.com - all the defintions is provided included a similar "without warning" bit, and it also stated that the origin of the word is a word meaning "going or coming stealthily".  Which all tends to indicate that "Suddenly, without warning" is a tautology.  (and is one of the better examples too!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.199.77 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to both Collins and Chambers it can also mean abrupt which is the meaning in the context above. It is not a tautology per se but depends on the context intended by the speaker.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But given that it depends on the context intended by the speaker, do we leave it in (as it could be a tautology) or take it out (as it could not be a tautology).  I'm confused.82.3.89.48 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This bit needs rewriting
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. {{talkquote|

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)


 * If its unsourced and reads like OR, then cut it, that's my philosophy.--Woland (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tautological expressions and propositions is brilliant says Dr. John S. Wilkins
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)


 * Posts from usenet are valid references. Stop adding this garbage.--Woland (talk) 16:07, 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)
 * Yes, that it what I meant. The reasons can be found at WP: RS.--Woland (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is disingenius because PZ Myers blog posts are used as references, if Wilkins had posted his opinion on his blog would it then be a valid reference? Wilkins reamains John S. Wilkins it doesn't matter where exactly he wrote something but that we have proof and can reference that he did have a certain view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.14.5 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, read WP:RS again as well as WP:OR. I have no idea why you refuse to learn the policies of Wikipedia. Until you do, please stop inserting gibberish. To be more specific, PZ Meyers is notable and the references pulled from his blog are used because he is a recognized scholar on his subject. Dr. Wilkins is non-notable and was speaking outside of his field (No offense to Dr. Wilkins of course, he is pretty awesome). Even if he posted it on his blog it would be irrelevant because it is a non-notable blog. Did you want to start referencing my posts from Usenet as well? --Woland (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f2c5dfa21e726d5c?hide_quotes=no Woland wrote: Here are some basic facts: Organisms have genes. Mutations happen in genes. Most of these are neutral. Some are beneficial and others are bad. The beneficial genes tend to spread throughout a population, eventually they may become static. This passage shows that Woland's thinking is tautological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.37.63 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It shows nothing of the sort. Do you even know what a tautology is? If you were completly ignorant of biology, you might think it was a truism, but that passage doesn't look anything like a tautology.  Even a complete idiot should be able to tell that.86.31.114.192 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ShibaInu
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)

It Bites Hard that "aromatic aroma" needs a citation
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)

Wit, or worse?
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)

Revising the examples based on Google popularity
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)


 * Based on other comments about whether certain examples were or were not considered tautologous, I've created a table of examples, sorted using the above popularities, each with accompanying explanations. To save space, I've also omitted the most obscure examples. Hopefully this table will be more useful to readers than the previous stream of confusing statements. Ian Fieggen (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is crap...
[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)


 * I've created a new table of examples, complete with explanations of why each expression is, or may not be, a tautology. Ian Fieggen (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ian - excellent article upgrade. It's the best single edit I've seen on this wiki in over 5 years - excellent post! 216.153.214.89 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with some of the specific examples of why something may or may not be a tautology but the table is overall very good at conveying that concept that something may or may not be a rhetorical tautology depending on context while giving very good reasons for many of them. Props. Flasher702 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Four languages in two words?
"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)


 * It should probably be removed in any case - see the article. --Neil (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2011 (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'm removing it from this article, based on the evidence presented here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of "except"
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:


 * Thanks for your edit there. I have marked a couple of thinngs in French and Old English, to make the point. It is referenced and is absolutely the fact that the two come from different directions.
 * But thank you very much for adding to this to make it better. I have made it a little better, but please cast your eye over it. I tink in particular the references should be better placed rather than at the end of the para, would you agree?
 * [...]
 * Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)