Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)

Tautological expressions and propositions

The tautological *expression* ("an unmarried bachelor") contains a redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This proposition is *not* a tautology because the intent isn't to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity. The tautological *proposition* ("all bachelors are unmarried") stated in a class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". The intent a person has with unmarried bachelor would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. TongueSpeaker (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing withing the meaning of tautology that requires a desire to decieve. Ergo, just because a phrase wasn't intended to decieve doesn't mean it isn't a tautolagous.

I want to add the following to the article but there is a dispute concerning it please resolve:

The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. 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 a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of the pragmatics with it. The dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is pragmatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Intent with random, success, selection and tautology

Put a bunch of marbles in a bag. Pick one out without looking at it. Would this be a random selection or a selection at random ? It would be a selection at random but the intent is that consciousness is involved. Usually the symbol string "random" is not associated with consciousness.

• There was a selection of rocks on the mountain after the earthquake.

The mountain had no intent to assemble an assortment or selection of rocks, the symbol string selection in this case isn't associated with consciousness.

• The mountaineers assembled a selection of rocks to form a camp.

The symbol string selection implies consciousness. And thus the intent behind the formulation of a sentence will determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity.

• "I went out to get the mail wearing only my slippers; I succeeded in slipping on the ice and breaking my nose."

Succeeded here is used rhetorically, the person didn't really have the actual intent of breaking his nose because success is defined as reaching a predetermined goal. And the question is what is the concept that we wish to convey with the symbol string tautology? TongueSpeaker (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Difference between logical and rhetorical tautology

A logical tautology such as X=X is defined as something which is true by definition but a rhetorical tautology is defined as the deceitful formulation of a proposition such that its truth is guaranteed making the proposition Unfalsifiable. F = ma , E = mc2 can be falsified. Mathematical equations are therefore not tautologies. Nobody is trying to commit deception with 10 + 220 = 230. The intent a person has with a sentence such as for example "aromatic aroma" decides wether it is language redundancy, play on words, poetry, rhetorical tautology or a logical tautology. There is no language nor tautological formulations of anything without a motive. And such a motive will be constrained by the individuals intelligence, mental health and background knowledge. The motive behind "aromatic aroma" will decide in each specific case wether it is a rhetorical tautology or play-on-words. When Bush stumbles over his words resulting in language redundancy he wasn't trying to deceitfully guarantee the truth of his propositions.

Gould commits a rhetorical tautology here:

• The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.
• S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.

Question: How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that the groups disappeared?

Gould, given his above average intelligence deceptively guaranteed the truth of his proposition:"...certain groups were extinction prone.." But the real reason for their extinction needs be derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that because they were "extinction prone" they disappeared, their disappearance implicitly implies that they were "extinction prone."

A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity. The statement "If you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is true, but conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was full of bulls-eyes, could be called a "tautological" game. The player wouldn't lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered erroneous. A rhetorical tautology is the deceitful formulation of a proposition in such a way that it is Unfalsifiable. "If you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" should be considered as tautological but not a rhetorical tautology because the intent of for example a mother trying to help her child find a toy isn't to deceive and thus the intent of a tautological statement would decide wether it is a

• Rhetorical tautology
• Logical tautology
• Tautological - depends on the intent of the person formulating a sentence.
• Language redundancy
• Poetic usage of words.

Some of the notable quotes said by, or attributed to, baseball player and manager Yogi Berra are considered humorous because they are, on the surface, tautological, including "It ain't over till it's over", "We made too many wrong mistakes" and "You can observe a lot by watching." These quotes should be considered as improvised poetry and not as rhetorical tautologies because of the light hearted intent Berra had with it. He wasn't specifically trying to deceive like Gould did. A separate Wikia page such as Language Redundancy should specifically deal with this. TongueSpeaker (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss your essay in any detail; I'm not sure why you posted it, since it doesn't seem to be proposing (or opposing) any particular change in the article, and the small change you just made could have been discussed much more concisely.

But I would like to address a small (almost tangential) error in the above: Something like x=x is not in fact a logical tautology, at least in the most usual precise sense of the term. It's what's called a logical validity; that is, something that can be proved in first-order logic without using any axioms. A logical tautology is something like "p or not p"; that is, something that can be proved in the more restrictive propositional calculus without using any axioms. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The thrust of my argument is that the intent constrained by the individuals background knowledge, intellect and mental health determines just how tautological a tautology really is. The semantics of these terms are tripping us up. We have formal mathematical set theory in which the intent by mathematicians such isn't to be a clown and with deceit try and sneak in A = A into equations. But in rhetoric where materialists and YEC like me try to convince the people who read these posts of our world view there certainly are examples of trying to deceive people. We should thus need to define the usage of the word *tautology* as used in formal math set theory and in rhetorical speech. I would propose that logical tautology such as A=A fall under the general heading rhetorical tautology. And mathematical logical tautology be used in formal set theory.

The intent with a person stating X=X would determine just how tautological it really is. If you are giving a class on logic trying to show what is a logical validity then I agree with your comments but if the intent was to deceive such as a mentally ill person walking around say a chicken is a chicken, what survives, survives or horses = horses then the degree of tautologicalness must be considered. As a YEC I am projecting my world view that there can't be any language without a motive or will. If your cat walked over the keyboard typing :"Survival of the fittest" the sentence wouldn't be a tautology because the cat had no intent. We must know who said SoF within the constraints background information. What background information does a cat have? We must evaluate everything you say from the perspective that you believe your motives and emotions are generated by the bouncing atoms in your head, which means we can't believe a word you say because if the atoms bounce in a different direction you might argue that you are a boiled egg.TongueSpeaker (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I got my point across to you. The point is that the word tautology as used in mathematical logic has a precise technical meaning that is only somewhat related to the usage in the tautology (rhetoric) article. For the logic meaning, there aren't any degrees of tautologicalness and there's no "intent" to worry about; a proposition is or is not a tautology, period, and you can check mechanically whether it is or not, just by writing out the truth table.

My point is completely unrelated to your discussion above, which I have no interst in engaging. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your piont: You have specific concept in math logic for which you use the symbol string 'tautology', my point is that

we should consider using another word or term such as mathematical redundancy and leave the symbol string 'tautology' to mean the deceitful formulation of a world view such that it's truth is guaranteed. This is not the case generally in mathematical logic but is the case in evolutionary theory where people try to obscure their belief that monkeys gave birth to humans.TongueSpeaker (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it as follows: You pick up a piece of paper with X=X written on it but don't know who wrote it. Is this 'X=X' a tautology? Anybody could have written it even a cat kicking over an ink pot. There is no language nor tautologies without a motive.

If it was an evil evolutionist using X=X as code language for "what survives, survives and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human" then it is a rhetorical tautology and not a logical tautology.

The intent was to deceptively guarantee the truth of the proposition. Language redundancy used in the poetic sense are not usually associated with deliberate deceit. tautology, natural selection, fitness are not concepts but symbol strings which conscious beings use to encrypt their specific intent with. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PerryMarshall TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical tautologies

I think this needs a reference: "Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies." Can anyone supply a reference? Otherwise it sounds like an opinion that needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyn1 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed it slightly to 'scientific equations'. Strictly speaking, mathematical statements such as '2 + 2 = 4' are tautologies in the logical sense, as they are necessarily true; statements about the nature of the physical world (like 'the speed of light = 300,000 km/s') are generally not. 'E = mc2' is a special case, which I am not sufficiently qualified to judge - I'll leave it in for the time being, but I'd appreciate the input of a physicist on whether that equation is actually necessarily true, or just happens to be so. Terraxos (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "2+2=4" is not a tautology in the logical sense. In fact it's not even a validity in the logical sense (for example, it would be false if you interpreted "2" and "4" in the normal way, but "+" as meaning subtraction). What you can say if you like is that it's an analytic truth or logically necessary truth, a statement "true by virtue of its meaning", though even here you may be able find people who'll argue the point. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say that X=X is a mathematical redundancy and not a tautology. The concept we have with somebody making tautological statement is the intent of deceiving to make somebody believe your point of view by formulating it in such a manner that it's truth is guaranteed. Nobody is really trying to be deceptive when saying X=X in formal mathematical logic. The issue is not the word tautology it is the concept that we have with it and it's various nuances. And formal math logic should in my view not even use the word tautology but coin a different term. For example we have the term Irreducible complexity or IC providing us with endless polemics between ID and Evo folks. But the word Interdependent encapsulates Behe's intent with term and instead of focusing on his intent Miller makes a fuss about Behe's definition which is not set in stone. The intent is the issue, what would be the intent with X=X and what survives, survives ? TongueSpeaker (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautology - a shockingly bad article

The article states:

"A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. Acceleration and mass independently don't equal force but their product MA as derived by Newton does, hence the equation F=MA isn't a tautology."

• 1) Well, duuuh. A tautological argument is a kind of argument - an argument of equivalence. If A=A then that is a kind of rhetorical argument. Notice how it is fundamentally symbolically different from the equation "e=mc squared". If I say "A duck is a duck" then that may be a tautology, but that does not reduce its validity as an argument.

If you were to say "a duck is a duck" and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human, then it would be a rhetorical tautology - it depends on what your intent is with duck=duck. TongueSpeaker (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2) This article is about rhetorical tautologies, yet logical (mathematical) equations are being used to prove the point. This is totally inconsistent. "e=mc squared" has nothing to do with rhetorical tautologies, "e=mc squared" is a scientific fact derived from a mathematical equation backed up by empirical data. The statement "e=mc squared" has absolutely no relevance to the tautological statement "a duck is a duck" because the former is a logical equation backed up by data while the latter is a matter of language, intonation and word stress. The two concepts are being cruelly abused here.

The article is about the concept we have with the symbol string 'tautology' not the symbol string itself, there are a multitude of concepts such as Rhetorical tautology, Logical tautology, Language redundancy , verbosity and UnfalsifiabilityTongueSpeaker (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3) Ok, they may be formally "tautological", but the word repetitious would much better suffice: The many so-called examples of tautology in "Repetitions of meaning in mixed-language phrases" are totally useless. Naming protocols do not a rhetorical tautology make, especially when two or more languages are involved. Rhetoric is about argument, not making lists.

• 4) This article does absolutely nothing to really advance the concept of the tautological argument in language. It is one of the worst wikipedia articles I have ever read. Unless it is being purposely sarcastic I totally fail to see the point of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duprie37 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Townsville City

Is this considered a tautology? (Town-town town). I'd like to know before I perhaps edit it in. Zombequin (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's named after a man named Robert Towns, so I'd say no. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To argue that this is a tautology, firstly you'd have to accept that instead of it being a proper noun it's an argument, which it isn't. If you somehow proved the first point you'd secondly have to assert that 'town', 'ville' and 'city' are the same term expressed with different language, which is also a highly debatable point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.163.169 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of page

This page was created by cut-and-paste from tautology, followed by editing to cut down to the relevant part. See that article for history, and talk:tautology for prior discussions. --Trovatore 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needlessly degrades tautological tautologies.

That's a really great joke. Did you come up with it all by yourself? 71.16.224.178

Let's not be so sarcastic with one another, nor waste each other's time with silliness. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with Pleonasm article

I'd like to suggest that this page stick to a general discussion of rhetorical tautology and then branch to more developed articles on specific types of such tautology, or related concepts. In particular, much of what is discussed on this page is not only covered in more depth over at pleonasm but arguably doesn't quite fit the two almost identical definitions laid out for rhetorical tautology at the top of this article. Not all forms of redundancy are tautological. I'm not a logician by profession, but I think that all pleonasms and tautologies are redundancies (at least in theory), and all tautologies are pleonastic by definition, but not vice versa. What makes a tautology tautological is that it "says the same thing twice". What makes a pleonasm pleonastic is that it says more (sometimes much more, in which case it is logorrheic as well as pleonastic) than it needs to, ergo tautologies in speech and writing a simply a subset of pleonasms. But I'd be happy to entertain other views on this. My main point is that the two articles overlap far too much, and either need to be differenced further or merged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cf. the Redundancy (language) article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Circumlocution is also defined similarly. I think an expert is needed, or at least someone who can investigate where these words come from and so on...124.189.98.53 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Constantly Deleted Pop Culture Quote

The following quote is constantly being deleted without justification by anonymous editor 209.101.224.34. If you feel the quote in question inappropriate, please justify yourself here. If you find that it has again been removed, please revert until a consensus is reached here.

“ United States President George W. Bush, before the Unity Journalists of Color convention on August 6, 2004, is quoted as saying, "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." [1] ”

This is a perfect pop culture example of a tautology. It appears here exactly as transcribed by the U.S. Government, with emphasis added, as hyperlinked above. The hyperlink points to a 2004 press release by the Whitehouse Government website. Winick88 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just simple redundancy of speech; it isn't a tautology. I'm removing this because it obviously stands out as being inappropriate, never mind that it involves George Bush and is thus inherently prone to attracting undue attention around these parts. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush wasn't trying to deceitfully guarantee the truth of the proposition he was just stumbling over his own words. TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a simple redundancy of speech. I agree with you on this. That is why it is a tautology. The definition on the page now states that "a tautology is a use of redundant language in speech or writing, or, put simply, 'saying the same thing twice'." The statement stands on its own, and the reader is free to draw conclusions as they may. For example, one might infer that this tautology is intentional, others may not. It isn't "inherently prone to attracting undue attention around these parts." Winick88 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the quote adds anything at all. It is amusing and silly and indicative of something about Dubya's reasoning powers, but it does precisely zero to educate anyone on the meaning of "tautology". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of "Pop Culture Examples of Tautology" is not necessarily to educate anyone on the meaning of tautology, but to merely provide examples of it. Otherwise, I don't see why your argument wouldn't apply to the other examples listed beneath this heading. Winick88

The tribal sovereignty quote was removed without justification by unsigned editor 198.28.129.127 on June 13, 2007. I am restoring the quote. Winick88 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The tribal sovereignty quote was again removed without justification by Moheroy (talk). I am restoring the quote.Winick88 (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that five unrelated people spontaneously removed this quote (which is a bad example of a tautology and probably motivated by a desire to mock Bush), and only Winick88 ever adds it back, shows that there is no consensus to keep it. Therefore I am removing it. —Jemmy_tc 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss why you believe the quote is a bad example of a tautology. Winick88 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote was removed by Korny O'Near (User talk:Korny O'Near). If you feel the quote inappropriate, please have the intellectual honesty to discuss it here. Winick88 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming new to this, it strikes me that there are too many cooks involved in this broth with too little objectivity and too much emotional digging in. Perhaps because this is the English page (attracting many visitors from the US), the fact that it was Bush who said this is really glazing some people's judgement. Why doesn't somebody ask a linguist to input on the matter and MOVE ON. BuzzWoof (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I'm open to discussion if someone would actually provide a rationale for removing the quote. All I've seen so far is a preoccupation with who said it rather than why the quote isn't a tautology. Let's try to confine the discussion to whether or not the quote is a tautology. Thank you, BuzzWoof, for your willingness to discuss the issue. Winick88 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is an ideal example of a tautology because the whole concept of tribal sovereignty in the United States is a politically contentious one (see the article), and the term means different things to different people. Thus, it could be argued that Bush was making, in an awkward way, an actual point - that, in his opinion, the phrase "tribal sovereignty" is meant to be taken literally, and confers full rights on tribes. I simply think that there are much clearer real-life examples of tautologies. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bush is making an actual point in the quote. I don't think he was making his point awkwardly, however. I think the statement is consistent with his no-nonsense "tell it like it is" style.

However, the statement is a tautology whether it was intentional or not. "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign." Please explain how this isn't a tautology-- I mean, if you're right, and Bush believes "sovereignty" is meant to be taken literally, then his statement that "sovereignty means that, it's sovereign" is a literal repetition of meaning.

I suggest a compromise-- since you simply think there are clearer real-life examples of tautologies, just add those to the list. I personally find tautologies fascinating and would welcome your additions. Winick88 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually did add a few more examples, at the same time that I removed the Bush quote - I don't know if you saw that. But, according to this article, "tautology" only describes an unnecessary repetition, i.e. one that adds no new information, and here it seems that the statement does hold information; translated out of Bush-speak, it could be stated as, "Unlike some people, I believe that the phrase 'tribal sovereignty' indicates that tribes truly have sovereign rights." He's making a connection between a phrase and a legal status, which seems to me hardly the same as saying "A is A". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is beyond our purview to "translate" any of these quotes or attempt to infer intentions or subtext. The quote itself is a tautology and Bush did not formulate his statement in the way you did above. The repetition of the word "sovereign" is unnecessary-- It would be different if another word had been used, but using a cognate of the very word he is attempting to define isn't probative-- it's redundant. Winick88 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like your definition of a tautology is different from the one currently in the article - it defines it as a repetition of meaning, whereas you're talking about a repetition of specific words. If it's a repetition of meaning, then inferring intentions is important. By your standard, would something like "Sahara Desert" (mentioned in the article) count as a tautology, since the two words are different? Conversely, imagine a phrase like "the red herring is a red herring" - the first mention refers to a fish, while the second refers to its role in some puzzle being solved. It would seem, if I understand it correctly, that by your standard this is a tautology, while by the article's standard it isn't. Is that correct? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. "Red herring" has two distinct meanings. One is a bird, the other a literary technique. I agree that the statement "the red herring is a red herring" can be probative and therefore not a tautology when used in that sense. However, your red herring example differs from the President's quote in an important aspect. In the President's statement, "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign," he literally means the same thing (you conceded this above). He isn't referring to different ideas that happen to have the same name. Again, it is not within our purview to infer intentions from this statement. And even if it were, neither of us is qualified to speak for the President. Better to let the statement speak for itself. Winick88 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood what I said before - I don't think the two "sovereign"s are the same thing. The first "tribal sovereignty" refers to a legal phrase, while the second refers to what could be called "facts on the ground". And of course, putting the statement in this article in the first place is not letting it speak for itself - it's making a claim that the statement is a tautology. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, you can't just assert what you think the President means without providing some justification. "Facts on the ground?" The president is fully capable of speaking for himself, and he never said anything like that. Please find where the president makes the distinction between two meanings of "sovereign," or concede this point. I am reverting the article for now. Winick88 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Please, when requesting an opinion from Wikipedia:Third opinion, take care that the dispute involves only two editors. The above dispute doesn't, although most recently I suppose it does.

• I don't see this as a "pop culture" quote. It's a political quote about foreign policy, apparently. In that sense, it doesn't belong.
• This doesn't seem to be an illuminating example either. There is no need for this article to list every tautology under the sun that has been spoken by someone famous. If the quotation causes contention, I say remove it and find something else.
• Neither of you know exactly what Bush was thinking, therefore neither of you can make a case whether this is, or isn't, a tautology, given the different meanings and usages of the "sovereign" in the quotation.

In other words, this quotation isn't a good example of a tautology. That's my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some given examples of RAS syndrome aren't tautologies or even redundant acronyms

"Gigaflops per second", "RPMs per minute" and "RPMs per second" are not tautologies, they are rates of accelaration, so I think they should be removed. Also I don't see how RPMs per second is an oxymoron, it's just different units of acceleration from RPMs per minute. If a user of these wasn't refering to acceleration, that would be just gibberish, not redundant acronym expansion, because each expansion of "per second" changes the meaning, ie. from (angular) velocity -> acceleration -> acceleration of acceleration etc. On second thoughts, this section could just be changed to a single link to RAS_Syndrome...

86.14.228.238 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the second solution better. Make the article lean and link to other topics as needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did so. I noticed my own tautology: "tautologies or even redundant acronyms" is one because redundant acronyms are a subset of tautologies. ah well... 86.14.228.238 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

- The sentence in this paragraph of the article starting "In Washington..." is not well tied in, and could do with some basic editing... in my opinion it's an unnecessary and complex example. The syndrome has already been well explained and backed up at this point. K^rowe 10:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a word as "impliedly"?

This word appears in the paragraph which starts "The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution", and I find it suspect; surely it should be "implicitly"? 193.122.47.170 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dictionary.com - just look and see instead of asking; as you can see, questions you can answer for yourself in 10 seconds are likely to be ignored for over a year. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tautology and Frege's "Use and Mention" as it applies to the Shahada

I welcome the individual(s) posting to the shahada bullet in the Pop Culture section to discuss why, if there is "no god but God" how the mention (or reference, bedeutung) of "god" can be different, in any language or cultural context than that used for the formal name (or sense, sinn) of "God" without invoking pluralism (shirk). In a wider context, I would like to see an informed discussion of how "Über Sinn und Bedeutung" applies to rhetorical tautologies, real and apparent. While Frege tended to deal, formally, with logicial tautologies, I do believe there is application here, though it may require that the use of semantics be brought in as well.

203.118.10.2 04:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Angels

This wouldn't be an example of a tautology: it's a seperate reference to a team nickname and the name of the city they're based in. "The Angels, of Los Angeles".

(Additionally, they're now the Los Angeles - Anaheim Angels, if I recall correctly.)

69.95.74.178 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows NT

Another well known example to many computer users is Windows 2000, which stated on its splash screen that it used "NT Technology" (New Technology Technology).

I deleted this because Microsoft has said that NT doesn't stand for anything before Windows 2000 came out. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

. And what about after it came out? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really need to back that up with a source, because that text is not essential to the article and the point is already perfectly clear by that point anyway. I don't think it adds terribly much to the article whether or not it is correct that "NT" doesn't stand for anything. But if you insist, you can have a look at Windows NT#'NT' designation. But I think if this were to be added back in, it might be better to add it to RAS Syndrome instead, since it's an example of that. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't take {{Fact}} on a talk page too seriously, it's just a shorthand for "Where is it that 'Microsoft has said' this?" I wasn't expecting <ref name="Microsoft.com2007">{{Cite web...}}</ref> as a response or anything. My main question was about the timing, but your RAS point actually moots the entire issue, really. Good call. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Schwarzeneggar

Is Arnold's last name a tautology? "Schwarz" and "neggar" both seem similar to words meaning "black", so his name would be "Black black". I'm no linguist, so I'm not sure if this is legit or not... Lurlock 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah...right! Or it could be that Schwarzenegger's ancestors were Swiss and hailed from Schwarzenegg - between Unterlangenegg and Oberlangenegg - about 25km south-east of Berne. I'm no linguist...but which one sounds more likely‽ -=0 Steelwool 0=- 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As above, this is a proper noun, not an argument, therefore can't be a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.163.169 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

28 Days Quote

The character might say it's a "tautology," but her quote is actually an example of circular reasoning. (Note, though that the reason the sky is blue is not what she states!) I think this ought to be removed, since it's a bad example. YorkBW 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree - it is perhaps more suited to the entry on logical tautologies (which is not very reader friendly!). Same with the Ayn Rand example... Go ahead, remove it. -=0 Steelwool 0=- Steelwool 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuna fish

Tuna fish is not a tautology since there are [Tuna (disambiguation)|non-fish tunas] (e.g; pears). --Belg4mit (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony

Currently the first sentence of this article reads: "In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages)."

Heheheheh. —Jemmy_tc 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FFS, this is not irony, it is self referential humor. There is NOTHING ironic about an article on redundancy being redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.238.200 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think though, it would be verging on irony if we managed to have a discussion about what irony is on a page about redundancy when there is a perfectly good discussion about what irony is on the irony page.Et Amiti Gel (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Small baby puppy dogs

A BBC Breakfast presenter (Bill Turnbull?) once referred to "small baby puppy dogs", "puppies" would have sufficed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The third paragraph of the article seems rather incoherent. It's more like a collection of loosely related statements than a logically flowing paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.5.68 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC Current

In electronics and specifically calibration, 'AC/DC Current' isn't neccessarily a tautology. The letter 'C' means the Current in the circuit is either Alternating or Direct. The appended 'Current' means the current is constant rather than the voltage: The other example would be 'AC/DC Voltage' The 'C' means the same as before but now the Voltage is constant. hrf (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tautology squared

The word 'twice" in the first sentence is tautological wgoetsch (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

unmarried bachelor and prgmatics

I want to add the following to the article but there is a dispute concerning it please resolve:

The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. 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 a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of the pragmatics with it. The dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is pragmatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(I moved this to its proper place) If you can find reliable sources that talk about this then and only then is it appropriate. You can't just add your opinion about things. Plus you don't really understand the issue of pragmatics or anything else in English.--Woland (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)