redundant particles
Would you say that the particles, such as "out" in "broadened out", are semantically and grammatically redundant here?
The market broadened out over the month.
They entered into a partnership with X.
The entered into the market after one a year.
They calmed the crowd down.
The pressure built up.
The terrain flattened out.
We heated up dinner.
These may be formally "redundant", but in reality they are a normal part of how English works, with the above seeming at least somewhat off, if not artificial or foreign, without them.
I do not see them as redundant, but as explanatory or yielding further deatil and description.
"The market broadened over the month" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "The market broadened out over the month".
The first means the Market became broad.
The second, that it expanded into new and sundry fields hitherto unoccupied by the Market.
This is the same for most if not all of the byspels above.
<<The second, that it expanded into new and sundry fields hitherto unoccupied by the Market. >>
So what the difference here?
We are broadening out our horizons.
We are broadening our horizons.
<<We are broadening out our horizons.
We are broadening our horizons. >>
The differences (if applicable) would be the same as above, except that horizons (in this sense) do not normally (i.e. are not capable of) broadening out, so I would go with the second as being the better sentence.
The first sentence I would say was noting a redundant particle so this byspel is a good one :)
<<The differences (if applicable) would be the same as above, except that horizons (in this sense) do not normally (i.e. are not capable of) broadening out, so I would go with the second as being the better sentence.
>>
I mean, technically, the horizons *could* broaden out, but idiomatically it sounds odd...
<<<except that horizons (in this sense) do not normally (i.e. are not capable of) broadening out,>>>
And why?
<<Tsk more redundancies. >>
Well, language is not only about conservation, but expression also. Redundancies can be found in all languages that are free evolving.
There is nothing wrong with "Redundancies" when they serve a purpose (and the purpose disqualifies them as Redundancies)
I agree. Redundancies do not affect the BASIC grammatical meaning, but they can effect the semantic and pragmatic (complex) meaning. Therefore, they may be necessary.