|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Hey, the author's a lawyer so he oughta know. The article
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
that one I learned in HS...
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
Quote:
‘‘[f]requently used for emphasis, esp. after demonstrative pronouns this and that (he didn’t like that particular tax; in this particular instance) to the point that it has attracted adverse comment (‘an unnecessary reinforcement,’ ‘can often be left out, to the benefit of the sentence’). Up to a point such criticism is just, but it should be borne in mind that there are some contexts, esp. (but not only) after a negative, when the adjective supplies legitimate emphasis (e.g. He had no particular reason for being there as far as I could tell; She didn’t write that particular essay but many others just as good).2
But in the two examples Burchfield gave, what about the negatives justifies any emphasis? By writing that ‘‘he had no particular reason for being there,’’ the writer is saying that not only did he not have a reason for being there, but there was also not any single reason for him being there. Why isn’t it enough simply to say that he had no reason to be there? And by writing that ‘‘[s]he didn’t write that particular essay,’’ the writer is emphasizing that the essay the writer is referring to really is the same essay that the writer is referring to: ‘‘See,’’ the writer says, ‘‘this one! This essay!’’ But we already know that that is the essay the writer refers to because the writer wrote ‘‘that essay.’’ What about that is so difficult to understand that it must be underscored and emphasized with particular?
The above highlights my major problem with both this article and the philosophy it espouses. The writer is saying that there should be no allowance made for redundancy at all. In criticising the two (valid, imo) usages listed by Burschfield, the author goes too far. There is a difference between "he had no reason to be there" and "he had no particular reason to be there", and anyone whose own ideolect is so impoverished as to be unable to see that deserves both pity and scorn in my view. Guy Deutscher's "Unfolding of Language" has some interesting things to say about the role of redundancies suchg as these. This pointless rant is yet more proof that Dick's advice to Cade should have been carried out way back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
