The word of the day was Hearken. Second definition reads, "to return to a previous subject (usually in the form of hearken back)." Isn't this redundant?

Also, if it is not redundant, then isn't the example quote that is given incorrect? "Such notions conjure up images of women as temptresses and hearken to times when the sight of a cello......"

There seems to be a contradiction here somewhere...but where????

Dear Angel,

Hearken back does seem redundant on one level, but on another it's intensified--as though moving not only a bit back, but a long ways.

Hearken is a word that is sadly lost in everyday speech, and, I suppose, only used for comic or dramatic effect.

Too bad, there. It has heart and broken fused into one word, still on the alert for old memories, but dulled, still, by the breaking.

I'm clearly being imaginative here. No left-brained linearity from this soul.

Welcome to the board, by the way. I like your name. You've got an appropriate beginning with Angel and hearken. Celestial kind of listenings here.


Best regards,
WW (aka DubDub, who don't like unnecessary punctuation!)

for those of us who are linear minded, the fault lies in Anu's definition, which is a bit misdirecting. actually, the phrase hearken back takes the second meaning, as is perhaps better explained here:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/26/2926.html.

the "usually" as given in sense two probably just shortcuts an explanation such as: sometimes people leave off the back but the context tells you that they refer to something said or done earlier. well, it is mostly a poetic (non-linear?) usage these days.

p.s. - in looking for recent citations, I found one with what I thought to be an odd phrase:

Nowadays... musical comedies all seem to hearken back to Old Vienna or Gay Paree, and they don't exactly contribute to the gaiety of nations. -Guardian, Dec. 15, 1967

the gaiety of nations, the cheerfulness or pleasure of a large number of people; general gaiety or amusement (freq. used hyperbolically or ironically).