![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I should be sleeping
Mar. 21st, 2006 10:03 pmBut I can't, too much going on that's frustrating and/or pissing me off right now. So I'm reading. And then I get annoyed with that too. I'm trying to finish my Words book, and I get to this:
"James E. Clapp, in his Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law says at the entry for to have and to hold:
The English language often places a higher value on rhythm, rhyme, and alliteration than on concision... redundant expressions , like nooks and crannies, each and every, hale and hearty, part and parcel, safe and sound, are part of everyday speech, and the language would be poorer without the music they provide."
*sigh*
With the arguable exception of nooks and crannies, these expressions aren't redundant, they are comprehensive, as the former expression can stand alone without the later. Each and every and part and parcel both refer to the individual items and then all of them as a whole; hale and hearty means healthy and strong; and safe and sound means out of danger and uninjured. None of them redundant.
damn lawyers...
"James E. Clapp, in his Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law says at the entry for to have and to hold:
The English language often places a higher value on rhythm, rhyme, and alliteration than on concision... redundant expressions , like nooks and crannies, each and every, hale and hearty, part and parcel, safe and sound, are part of everyday speech, and the language would be poorer without the music they provide."
*sigh*
With the arguable exception of nooks and crannies, these expressions aren't redundant, they are comprehensive, as the former expression can stand alone without the later. Each and every and part and parcel both refer to the individual items and then all of them as a whole; hale and hearty means healthy and strong; and safe and sound means out of danger and uninjured. None of them redundant.
damn lawyers...
