![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
One peeve some have is about color descriptions. "It was orange in color." is redundant since orange is clearly the color and "It was orange" conveys the same information. I just noticed a situation where the "..in color" line makes sense. While for most colors it is redundant there are some where it conveys necessary information. "The brick was gold in color." has a different meaning than "The brick was gold." The same applies to silver. Color names that are also material names need to be distinguished between mere color and actual material - at least in some cases. If the item described is clearly not the material ("The sunbather's skin was bronze."), then the argument against redundancy returns.
no subject
Date: 2 Dec 2004 14:35 (UTC).....and that is probably not even what you are talking about is it?
Creeps away.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2 Dec 2004 15:31 (UTC)if (woofp == TRUE)
....
if (arfp == FALSE)
....
or worse yet,
if (mumble != TRUE)
....
I can't help being reminded of Tarski's definition of truth: the proposition "snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white.
Do people who code this way talk this way? "If the truth value of the proposition "the movie runs longer than two hours" is true, I'll call you."
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2 Dec 2004 22:55 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 4 Dec 2004 09:10 (UTC)Most of the time, though, you're right; it's simply redundancy, perpetrated by someone too ignorant to know better or too careless to be concerned about word usage.