User talk:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing

Feedback is welcome! Tony 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

These are nitpicks, but I know you welcome scrutiny :)

• Regarding this edit, my intention was to fix the use of "Exercise 3" and "Exercise 4": these labels were used in older versions of this page, but not in the current version. Unless I'm forgetting something, MoS only advises against incorporating a link within a heading; all I'm suggesting is a convenience link to the section of the page to which the reader is being directed. Not sure whether "Exercise 3" should point to part (1) or (2) of "Removing or replacing one word or more".
• The section titled, "Removing a single word: more exercises" should probably be re-titled "Removing one or two words" or similar.
• Under More difficult examples Problem D, is there any reason the foreign "in toto" couldn't be replaced by the more straightforward English "in total"?

Also a little heads-up – the page move broke the link to the talk page archive. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All done, I hope. Tony (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Style guide

"... the Financial Times style guide on unnecessary words"
Clicking on the link in the introduction brought me to The Economist.com style guide, not the Financial Times;
still, very useful, nevertheless.
RASAM (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; fixing now. Tony (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Last exercise

"the plans did not reflect any of the advances in warship design" - striking those words changes the phrase's meaning. "Did not reflect any of the advances" means, that out of the 137 different advances they could have reflected, the plans reflected 0. "Did not reflect the advances" is less specific, and could well mean, that out of the 137 different advances, the plans missed 135, and merely used a couple of unimportant ones, thereby ignoring the main body and the important ones. Of course, in most cases "any of" is too strong, but it is a change in meaning. --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a marginal point, but I think you're right. I'll work out what to do later. Tony (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Too difficult for me

Is there a 'junior' version for kids who are not native speakers? I scored only five in both the first two exercises. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, some adult native speakers need the really easy ones too. I guess I could sequester them into a separate section. OOORRR, I could create a counterpart to the "Advanced editing exercises". But non-native speakers would need a different one from native young people ("the", for example). This might be the solution to my difficulty in reverse-engineering the use of "the" in English, and my failed set of exercises for it. Tony (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

'The' is a very serious problem. In Hong Kong, some people overuse it while others don't use it at all. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity learning resource

Perhaps this could be converted into a Wikiversity learning resource. Also, is there a WP article that talks about this subject? This seems like a prevalent issue among inexperienced writers and doesn't seem to get enough attention. --Devourer09 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem B

The statement in problem B has more than one problem. For example, the whole sentence is referring to vectors in Fig. 2, so it doesn't make sense to put a reference to Fig. 2 at the end of the sentence. Also, each vector can represent an average rainfall, but not a pattern. Here is a better version:

In Figure 2, each green or yellow vector represents the average rainfall for a region.

RockMagnetist (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also as disambiguator

Hello Tony1, thankyou for these instructive exercises.

In the explanation to "Longer tonicisations may also include other secondary chords." (problem E under "Removing one or two words") you say "Even without the larger context, it's obvious that "also" is idle here; "other" is quite sufficient for the sense." However, without knowing the context, the article might previously have said that a basic tonicisation requires a chord of dominant function (dominant, leading note, ...) in the tonicised key. Now consider possible sequels:

• Longer tonicisations may include other secondary chords in addition to a <still required> secondary dominant;
• Longer tonicisations may include other secondary chords instead of a <now forbidden> secondary dominant;
• Longer tonicisations may include other secondary chords, with or without a <now optional> secondary dominant.

Only someone who already knows the answer would be in a position to decide between these, and I think the also disambiguates to the first. To generalise, also may be useful when it declares previous conditions/requirements not to be superseded. --Stfg (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cornered. I'll attend to this later this month, when I'm over my RL work deadline. Thanks for your perceptive comment. Tony (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The sign

Could you do it with even five, "Visitors warned to avoid accidents"? Or even "Visitors: avoid accidents". JORGENEVSKI 11:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure; I guess I'd thought of it myself as still being fully grammatical. Removing "are" is in the grammar of what Halliday calls short texts—newspaper headlines, signage. Truth is, that sign could be reduced even to two words: "Avoid accidents". Or four: "Take care: avoid accidents". :-) Tony (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Under "Starting out"

In problem F, would it be acceptable to use "The parents chose"? If so, I'm guessing it would still be better to use "Both parents chose", but was just wondering. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good, Lightshow! You're right, it does need just a little context to firm up the reason for marking the subject with "both" (i.e., not one, but both), so I've provided that. I guess the grammatical point is that "both" doesn't necessarily need "the" as well. Is it OK now? Tony (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm proud of myself now =) . Don't want to brag though =P L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken link

The anchor in the link in the solution to problem C under the section "Removing one or two words" to the Manual of Style, #Precise_language, only leads to the Manual of Style, as there either is no longer a section with the title of Precise language (there isn't), or there is no anchor on the page. Just thought I'd let you know. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right! Removing the link now. Tony (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Under "More difficult exercises"

In Problem B, would it be acceptable to use "Many critics gave the..."? L1ght5h0w (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In some cases; it depends on context. But here, the majority of means (to me) more than 50%, and so does most. Many just means a lot, don't you think? But you drew my attention to Additionally, which is pretty ugly but not a watertight redundancy until the larger context is provided. Thank you. Tony (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken link?

The link to "More difficult exercises" at the end of "Removing a single word: more exercises" isn't working. Is it supposed to point to "Further difficult exercises"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Curly. Fixed. Tony (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicky commentary

I slightly disagree with some examples and more strongly disagree with part of one other.

• Removing a single word: more exercises

Exercise A: Yes, more competition for his past services would not make sense (unless these—or his competition—involve time-travel) but for his current services could. I feel that it heavily depends on the context. (If, as a result of the recognition, he decided to offer new services, 'future services' could easily imply that there was no keen competition for the kinds of service he continued to offer but solely for just the new services, to give just one example). On the other hand, "this sudden recognition" could be shortened. Either 'this' refers to a previous mention/explanation of the recognition, in which case the nature of it (including it being 'sudden') should already be known and 'sudden' can thus be skipped, or 'this' does not refer to a previous mention/explanation, in which case it's sloppy usage and 'this' can be skipped.

• As I learnt writing these exercises, the notion of redundancy indeed depends on context. "This sudden recognistion" is necessarily a back-reference, so isn't the issue. Current vs future services—well, maybe, so I've added a word to make it past-in-past tense. This should make it yet more unlikely that "current" services would be an option. "This sudden recognition had led to keen competition for Handel's future services." Well spotted, but yes, niggly. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  If appropriately used, it certainly is, hence me specifically stating that other use would be sloppy. (Yet, sadly enough, not all too uncommon in wikipedia articles, particularly when there has been a hard-fought compromise over what to include and where, resulting in sentences not being changed to reflect the previous sentence is no longer there). As to the other, real issue of the sentence, yes, solved. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Exercise E: Again depends on context. For all I know, there are more established methods than those three; it's just the three that are also available. (On the other hand, the fact that the methods are available somewhat implies that they are established; methods not (yet) established would hardly be considered available).

• I think you've answered the query, and that this one is fine as it is. A wholesale rewording would have been needed to convey the notion that these three methods are among (many) others, so I don't see it as a likely option. (I take issue with F—"any"—and will return to remove or change it. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  True, as a sentence on its own, it does not imply it. In certain contexts, it could. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Removing one or two words

Exercise G: How, exactly, is a disease/disorder hereditary but not genetic? (the other way around is of course possible).

• Very good. I've solved it, I hope. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  I probably would have struck the other one (genetic) as primary solution, leaving hereditary; with the way you've opted as second choice, by means of non-hereditary genetic diseases existing, but non-genetic hereditary diseases not existing (thus keeping hereditary covers both the 'inheriting' and 'genetic' parts, whereas genetic does not necessarily cover the hereditary part), but as you have both options listed in your explanation, solved well enough. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redundancy renovations:

Exercise E: Depends on if it's the purpose or a trait of those aspects. If trait, then yes, 'serve to' is redundant. If it's what they're designed for, not so much.

• Very good. Have I solved it? Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yup. To misinterpret it now, or assign it a different meaning from what is intended, you'd need some highly hypothetical and strange constructions, along the same lines as evoking 'time-travel' when it comes to tenses. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redundancy renovations(2):

Exercise A: Direct or indirect? If the decisions made are the direct cause, then yes, redundant. If the decision-making is the indirect cause (e.g. by teaching poker players a certain skill or mindset that they can adapt to maximize their odds in poker), then it's not, though unless made explicit in previous sentences would require some clarification.

• I can't see how indirect causality could ever be implied by the original wording. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  Only by context, never on its own. In meaning, direct certainly is a lot more likely, but the formulation allowed for interpreting as indirect in that it would in such a case still be structurally and grammatically sound. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Exercise D: Due to problems with certain more novel features, or even Due to problems with novel features, depending on whether the specific features are mentioned later (in that case, the subset is not necessary at all); how important 'some' is in the context to contrast with all and whether or not there is contrast with other novel (but not that novel) features.
(If I want to be ridiculously nitpicky, E in the pre-correction form is not redundant... provided that their research led to them finding a long forgotten package with a cure for malaria in it (or similar), but yeah, not particularly likely)

• I think "some of" is essential to the meaning: if it's removed, the meaning changes—it's clearly not all of the more novel features. In any case, "certain more novel" doesn't sound idiomatic to me; if it had to be used, I'd hyphenate ("certain more-novel"). I'm struggling to understand why a later reference would change anything: making readers disambiguate later is not usually a good idea, in my experience. "Research" and "finding" are so intimately connected that I can't imagine a context in which it would be useful to make readers read both words. Even as a stand-alone sentence, without context. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  To address the easiest point first (research and finding), that one was part tongue-in-cheek and like I said, ridiculously nitpicky. Main situations I can imagine are those in which the subject of research is not related to the finding of something; especially if the thing found is something with a physical shape. (Say, the research was on how to make cars use their fuel more effectively and they found an old box with a cure for malaria in the backroom of their testing facility). Again, this is pretty close to evoking "time-travel! With time-travel, later competition could threaten past services!"

  Certain more novel is awkward, true enough. As to the "some of", my mind just tells me "problems with x means problems with an non-specified amount of x; almost certainly not all because that would have been specified". Looking into it deeper, I do see what you mean, though I experience the shift in meaning as more subtle—unspecified amount of; not all -> unspecified amount of; extremely probably not all—but there is a change in meaning. As to the 'specific features mentioned later', mainly because that substantiated an undefined amount which is undefined with or without "some", though afterwards, especially a multi-sentence sequence, would indeed not be the best place to put it, except if unavoidable. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Further difficult exercises

Exercise A: Ah, but where does it say that it was imperial China it had that effect on? It could have been a rivalling nation that felt those effects until the end of imperial China. (In that case, 'enduring' would be redundant, though. And yes, very nitpicky, this)

• Very good point. How is it now? Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Much better. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Longer examples

Exercise A: second occurrence of 'the eye' can easily be replaced by 'it'. For one, it's the subject of the previous sentence; second, the terminology 'eyewall' strongly suggests being around said eye.

• But but but ... "it" could back-refer to any singular noun or noun group in the previous sentence. Again, I don't want readers to have to disambiguate in reverse. "It" is a dangerous word, IMO. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  Could it? Yes. Would it be likely in this context? No, because the previous sentence's subject is, if singular or a noun group, always the most likely candidate and there is additional evidence in the sentence that "eye" is what is intended with "it". (Also, if you want to use that argument, then how about your example Bruckner's Symphony No. 3 was a turning point for the composer. However, in the years following the work's premiere, he revised it several times.? If we look at it that way, "it" could refer to 'Bruckner's Symphony No. 3'; to 'turning point', to 'composer', to 'the work' and to 'premiere'. Yet I highly doubt anyone is going to read it as though "he" revised himself, a turning point or a premiere, and 'the work' and 'Bruckner's Symphony' refer to the same thing.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  

Exercise B: strongly disagree with the striking of 'program'. Due to the sentences that follow, it can easily be mistaken to mean that it was rated higher on British TV than in the other countries it airs in. (Which would be sloppy writing, of course, but not a particular uncommon form of it)

• My assumption has always been that reverse diambiguation shouldn't be necessary. The forward-moving meaning is perfectly clear, and I think repeating "program" is clunky in that sentence. (Of course, you might argue that "Since its launch, Coronation Street has ..." is just such a reverse disambiguation, and you'd be right: somehow that works well, but I can't think why just now. Tony (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  'Shouldn't be' doesn't quite always equal 'isn't', though, and so long as a good amount of people aren't taught to look with a critical eye at what a text actually means, it frequently does remain necessary. As to why "Since its launch" works better for you, probably because it's a turn of phrase so commonly used (well, the 'since its ...', anyway) that there already is the implicit expectation built in through experience that the 'it' will be clarified later on. My personal stance is that there's nothing wrong with reverse disambiguation so long as the clarification follows logically from the invocation and makes sense from a grammatical point of view. (In other words, "She's as beautiful as her name, Lily" works if awkwardly phrased (even though there is a double reverse disambiguation at play here with both 'she' and 'name'), "Before Tom's fight with Sander, the teacher mused, he had never behaved like that" absolutely does not work because there is the possibility of 'he' referring to Tom, Sander or the teacher, with Sander being the least likely of the three but no real clue given through the sentence's structure, grammar or internal logic. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, nitpicky commentary. I don't blame you if you decide to ignore it altogether. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

AWNH, I'll swap "genetic" with "hereditary". I'll leave the others for a while and return fresh. If you have the inclination, the "Advanced editing exercises" could always do with a look-over by someone with strategic distance—but it might be quite a chunk to do in one sitting. You wrote: "My personal stance is that there's nothing wrong with reverse disambiguation so long as the clarification follows logically from the invocation and makes sense from a grammatical point of view." To that you could add adjacency as a factor on the balance sheet: the immediately foregoing nominal group seems to me like a weakly favoured default, especially if there's no period in between. I guess we are playing with readers' working memories here, right? Tony (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I will probably take the time to look over those other exercises, though I cannot promise when exactly. Yes, adjacency plays a role as well, especially in more intricate or complex sentence-structures (in simple subject-verb-object constructions of maybe six words it would matter far less than in a thirty-plus-words-long sentence with a parenthetical phrase, an embedded clause and a non-standard subject-verb order... the sentence this parenthetical phrase appears in, for example) but falls for me somewhat under 'follows logically'; and of course, there always are cases where no one would doubt which of the possible targets of a back-reference or back-disambiguation is meant. (E.g. "It was a calm walk through the park for the dog and the old man walking with him; at least, that is, until he started barking loudly." While from a linguistic/grammatical point of view, both 'dog' and 'old man' are equally applicable targets of the 'he' backref—if anything, from a grammatical point of view, 'old man' would be slightly more likely because it is undeniably male whereas 'dog' can also be referred to as 'it'—no one with any knowledge of humans, dogs or barking would think 'well, they must have intended the old man with 'he' in the second part of the sentence.) Yes, or rather, with their working memory as well as their logic and reason (working memory does you little good if you cannot form connections or mentally discard ridiculous connections that would be possible if reading on grammar alone). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Witty, I judder a little on "he". And it's not just momentarily having to work out which of the two is the target; it's the marked use of gender for a non-human animal—possible, but unusual. BTW, "it" is acceptable for a new-born baby. Also marked is the order of dog then man, which suggests a thematic focus on the canine. May I suggest something else? "It was a calm walk through the park for the dog and the old man walking with him; at least, that is, until he the dog started barking loudly."

I asked on my talkpage yesterday, but it got lost: is redundant wording less a problem for Dutch-speakers? Tony (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide

Redundancy renovations (2) exercise B: "More than 300 million Led Zeppelin albums have been sold worldwide, including 109.5 million sales in the US alone.".

The US is a proper subset of the market that has 300 million sales, so I can guess what that larger market is - unless figures for the rest of the Universe are significant? 81.187.36.50 (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. OK, will fix. Thanks. Tony (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw several other things I would trim

The most glaring is that "armor protection" is redundant. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? Tony (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The photo

What a pity you haven't got one signed by the long form "Ministry of Public Buildings and Works" of blessed memory! Seriously, though, thank you for this very useful page. I saw it passive-aggressively recommended to another editor, but I am very glad to have seen this stuff for myself as a result. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Further difficult exercises, Problem D

"Sport is compulsory for all students; teams usually train twice a week."

Should we rewrite "twice a week" into "biweekly"? Pokokichi2 (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. "Biweekly" might be misunderstood as "every two weeks" by some readers. Alternatively, "train twice weekly" might be more elegant. Tony (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response! It looks like twice-weekly is one word rather than two. Semi-weekly probably works but I haven't heard about it except from Wiktionary. A quick glare on N-gram shows that biweekly is the more popular though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokokichi2 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Bring along v Bring: Exercise C

Hi I really like your format and work here, and in general I favor a “less is more” approach. However, “Bring along” and “Bring” are not quite the same thing in example C.

Adding along changes the verb, slightly “softening” it. Along suggests that the diseases’ arrival was more incidental, that is to say, peripheral to the invasion, and therefore by implication less intentional. Without along, the two verbs, invaded and brought, feel closer to equal significance. Dropping along opens the sentence’s interpretation slightly, making it less precise. What happened is the same, but why it happened is slightly more open to interpretation. Did they purposefully bring diseases to destroy their enemies? Of course, our understanding will be informed by the larger context, but each sentence helps guide the reader.

Another example of along softening a verb. If you receive a dinner invitation and write back, “I’ll come and bring along a bottle of wine,” the bottle feels more incidental to your coming, than if you write back, “I’ll come and bring a bottle of wine.” Both convey what will happen, but the feeling is slightly different because removing along makes the verbs closer to equal weight. The first suggests something extra, almost an afterthought; because the second sounds more definite, even within this act of generosity, it feels a little harsher.

And feeling matters.

A second example: It feels very different if the police tell you, “Move along,” then if they say, “Move.” Or if you tell your children, “Come along, now,” then if you say, “Come, now.”

Petruchio tells Grumio

“Did I not bid thee meet me in the park

And bring along these rascal knaves with thee?”

Perhaps a poor example of “softening” – partially because Shakespeare needs along for his iambic pentameter – but it does reveal just how long along has been “creeping into” English.

Thanks for all your hard work

Sincerely,

Adjprofe (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adjprofe: I see the Guild of Copy Editors has noticed you at your talkpage! Thanks for your comments here, which I've considered carefully. Yes, the rhythm and line-length suited Shakespeare. And yes, there's an oh-so-slight nuance in using "along" along with "bring". When I renovate this page (haha, maybe in the next few months), I might add a note to that effect; quite a few of the examples could do with pointers to such subtle differences. But I'd not enourage writers to use it unless absolutely necessary to their intended meaning. The only examples I disagree with in your post are "move along" and "come along", which are (phrasal) verbs of quite distinct meanings from those of the single words. I obey the cop's order, "Move", if I step once in any direction. "Come" might be smirked at by kids who are old enough.

I do hope you're going to stay around. There's lots of improvement to be done, and many readers around the world! Tony (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Redundant “that”

Many thanks for your exercises; I learned a lot.

On many hundreds of occasions I have erased the word “that” where I believe it is redundant. For example if I saw “The President said that he hoped the economy would improve” I would be likely to erase the word “that” and leave an edit summary describing the word as redundant (in this sentence.) Mostly my erasures attract no challenge or adverse comment.

On one occasion I found the sentence “Blunt later claimed that the story was fabricated.” I erased the word “that” but my edit was reverted. When I discussed with the reverter the response was that erasing the word “that” made the sentence casual and colloquial, and the “that” was necessary to achieve the formality that Wikipedia requires in an encyclopaedia.

A quick question – do you agree the word “that” is sometimes/often used in a redundant way; and should be erased in the same way as any other redundancy?

Suggestion – it might be beneficial if you added an exercise based on this style of redundant use of the word “that”. Dolphin (t) 10:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• User:Dolphin51, thanks for this. I agree with the first removal, but the second one is on the boundary of being needed/unnecessary. "Blunt later claimed the story" – laid claim to the story? Then disambiguated in a flash reversal. These exercises, which I wrote a long time ago, need thorough renovation. I hope to get onto it in the next few months. Tony (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I value your advice. (I have never heard of flash reversal but I immediately knew what it meant!) I encourage you in whatever renovations you undertake to your exercises. Dolphin (t) 01:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Dolphin51, I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. The relative pronoun that in the OP example is not redundant, it is a standard relative pronoun introducing a relative clause. English grammar permits all sorts of transformations, one of which is dropping the introductory that (or which or who) from a relative clause, leaving what is called a reduced relative clause. That doesn't make the fuller version "redundant", it makes it the original, or "unreduced" version. One of the issues of reduced relatives is that they are prone to ambiguity. One example is the well-known (and fully grammatical) sentence:

• Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Once you realize where the elided relatives are, this sentence makes total sense; otherwise, it seems like gibberish. Bryan Garner has two pages on relatives with that (and which), and has a section on "wrongly suppressed that", which appears to be a kind of contagion in some writers, who, aware of the that-elision transformation, take it too far, and eliminate that where it may not be. See Dictionary of Modern American Usage (2000) p. 649. Bottom line, reduced relatives are a bit tricky, and "redundancy" is not the right category in which to discuss it, so probably not really appropriate for this page. (Garner also has half a page on Redundancy on p. 561 with some good, real-world examples you could copy or cite.) As someone with some awareness of issues for ESL learners, I'm aware that reduced relative clauses pose difficulties for non-native speakers (perhaps because many Romance languages generally cannot drop the that), and given that English Wikipedia has a large number of readers (and editors) whose first language is not English, a suggestion to drop a "redundant" [read, elidable] that would likely make the resulting sentence harder to understand; not something to be encourages.

If you wanted an interesting example of English grammar involving relative clauses, you could add one about restrictive vs. non-restrictive relatives and which one must have commas, and which one must not. Otoh, neither one is subject to redundant word removal, although if you expanded the concept of redundancy to include punctuation, maybe you could, but it seems like this might be a bit outside the scope of this page. Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot. Thank you for taking an interest in this subject. You have attempted to make several points but you have not included examples or illustrations so most of your points are lost on me. (Your example “Buffalo ... ...” is unhelpful. It bears no resemblance to anything I have ever done or written on Wikipedia.)

I have never claimed that the word “that” can be erased at every opportunity, or erased according to a formula or algorithm. For example, the word “that” is essential in the following sentence so must not be erased: “I saw that dog again today.”

You have written “... would likely make the resulting sentence harder to understand...” This is not relevant to me because I only erase a redundant word when doing so improves the sentence, or at least does no harm. I give careful consideration to a sentence before I erase a redundant word, both before I make the erasure, and how the sentence will appear to a non-specialist reader after I make the erasure.

It is possible for any User to examine a list of all the edits I have made with an edit summary beginning “Erased redundant”. I have just done so and the list numbered 442 edits. I will be very happy to discuss with anyone the suitability of any of these edits.

Wikipedia is not written by professionals. Many Users employ the redundant “that”. I am confident these Users will understand the concept of erasing a “redundant that”; but are much less likely to understand and be sympathetic towards an edit summary saying “erased relative pronoun introducing a relative clause”., or similar. Dolphin (t) 11:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was probably not clear; I was making no commentary whatsoever on your article edits, as I have not seen any of them. I have faith that you are only removing words when they should be, if you say you are. My comment was strictly regarding the proposal that Tony add a section about the word that to his redundancy exercises page. I think he should not, for the reasons I gave. Since you raised the question about how to write the edit summary if you do drop a "that" from a sentence, obviously you should write it simply and of course most users wont understand the grammatical explanation; the longer explanation in grammatical terms was strictly for this discussion to justify why it shouldn't be done, not for edit summaries. For the same reason, I would hope that you would not remove that from relative clauses in articles as it wouldn't improve the article and might be viewed as a MOS:VAR violation, i.e., changing from one valid alternative to another valid alternative simply because you prefer the latter. Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. You have clarified your position admirably.

I think my motivation in erasing redundant words is the principle that in an encyclopaedia and similar documents every word in a sentence must earn its place. If a sentence contains N words but it can be written with N-1 words without loss of meaning and without becoming more difficult to read and comprehend, I feel compelled to contemplate the N-1 version. If the N-1 version is satisfactory I am likely to be bold and erase.

It will be helpful to me if you give an example of a sentence containing “that” in support of a relative clause where erasure of “that” would fail to improve or would lead to a deterioration. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think both principles of "economy of words" and "clear and universal prose" are fully compatible, as are efforts to be aware of writing pitfalls that compromise one or the other. Remsense留 18:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing one or two words: F

This involves the provision of a reference section, complemented by inline citations for quotations and any material that is likely to be challenged.

Could "that is" be removed as well? 207.235.148.245 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes! Tony (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy renovations (1): B

sentence: "Recent analyses of available historical records show why the European settlement of Greenland failed."

you suggest that "available" is redundant. i don't agree: "Recent analyses of historical records show..." can be interpreted as analyses of historical records which became available recently. "Recent analyses of available..." emphasizes the fact that the records themselves were available for some time, and only the analyses is recent. it's a subtle point, but still, IMO "available" conveys meaningful information, and is not redundant.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Redundancy renovations (2): A

"As a result of making such decisions, poker players are able to maximise their odds and win more money."

you suggest "By making such decisions, poker players can maximise their odds and win more money."

i think this can be made tighter and clearer. "By making" seems redundant - decisions are always "made". i'd suggest resurrect the "able" from original sentence, but make it a verb:

"such decisions enable poker players to maximise their odds and win more money."

peace. קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting out: removing a single word — Exercise F

"Both" already identifies the noun "parents" (which parents the writer is referring to). This makes "the" redundant, since "the" send the message to the reader: "you already know which parents I'm referring to"…

Shouldn’t that read “since "the" sends the message”? Argenti Aertheri (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; fixing now. Tony (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Spot the ambiguity - Exercise E

"The flagship event takes place in Delhi, where the prime minister hoists the national flag at the Red Fort and delivers a nationally broadcast speech from its ramparts."

Where are the ramparts on a national flag? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. Do you think the word order makes it clear (fort comes later than flag)? Tony (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t spot a problem. I think “its ramparts” more logically associates with Red Fort than with national flag because the former is contiguous with the clause about delivering a nationally broadcast speech. Dolphin (t) 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think most people would assume from their own knowledge that the ramparts relate to the fort. But when I read it, I noticed it was taking a bit longer to parse the sentence, and I believe it was because my brain had to fetch that piece of knowledge first to determine the correct context. "the ramparts" scans a little bit better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Impressed

Nice; especially liked the longer explanation for two – both in § C 2, not to mention the awareness of markedness. One tiny quibble is the duplicate section names, and having to specify #C_2 in order to link the one I mean; but this is nbd if you prefer your current heading structure. One possible enhancement: an intro section (or an Appendix at the bottom, or an explanatory note) describing how you fashioned your example sentences (created? found online? found in WP articles? other?) would be interesting for the curious, like me. Thanks for this, I plan to revisit. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing hint?

Goodness, how many years has it been since I've last done these exercises…? Always an invaluable resource.

A possible oversight I've noticed: in longer example B, the hint leaves out the last incidence of redundancy. Waltham, The Duke of 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)