Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Recently I have heard the term "return back" used when "return" is accurate to describe the meaning. I don't like redundancy and it sounds uneducated to me. I hear it from "news" anchors as well as in every day conversation. Why is this happening now? Or is it that I wasn't paying attention when I was younger?
Suppose you were on a tour, starting in your home city of Cincinnati, planning to perform in Dayton, Columbus, Lima, Toledo, Grand Rapids, South Bend, and Indianapolis. While passing through Findlay, you discover that you wife isn't aboard the tour bus. You return to Lima to get her before going on to Toledo. On the other hand, while you are in South Bend, you hear that your mother had a heart sattack, so you cancel the rest of the tour, so you can return back to Cincinnati.
There are places where return, or turn back is more appropriate, and they probably are more common, but return back seems to have a legitimate use, especially when you specify where "back" refers to.
You lost me, deaconB. How is going back to Cincinnati different from going back to Lima except, of course, that they are different places? Is it because Cincinnati is home? or the place from which you started? Is it because of different motives for going back? I just don't see how it makes sense for one to be a return and the other a return back.
Robert, I don't think return has meant "turn again" for about seven hundred years.
tromboniator said
You lost me, deaconB. How is going back to Cincinnati different from going back to Lima except, of course, that they are different places? Is it because Cincinnati is home? or the place from which you started? Is it because of different motives for going back? I just don't see how it makes sense for one to be a return and the other a return back.
If you turn back, you abandon your current leg of travel. If you return, you revisit some place you've been before. If you return back, you are returning to your origination point.
Unless, of course, one grasps the semantics differently than I do, which is certainly noy impossible. We each get to make up our own tules for language, and they are only incorrect if you are misunderstood. Which certainly happens all the time, or we wouldn't have these discussions.
Speaking of not being understood, does anyone here know what snitz are? I thought everyone knew. I want to make snitz and knkepp, and I can't find a store that even knows what they are, much less a store that sells them.
deaconB said
Unless, of course, one grasps the semantics differently than I do
It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that understanding how English works is less about "This is right, that is wrong" and more about "Some do this, some do that." The latter is certainly friendlier.
Edit: And thanks for the tip about snitz and knepp. Never heard of it before, but it sound like something worth trying.
Snitz and Knepp Recipe from Turkey Hill
I'm not a person who likes sweet foods with meats: no mint jelly; no cranberry sauce; no a l'orange. So I'm not going to rush to try it. If not for my particular taste, it sounds delightful.
No meat when you have pancakes or waffles for breakfast, no carrots with your pot roast, no sausage with your acorn squash no corn and peas with your turkey TV dinner? Boy, you'd be hard to cook for!
If I can't maker snitz and knepp for the Christmas Day caerry-in, I suppose I'll have to make spaetzle in brisket broth.
Similarly, where I used to work, when we needed to get money back from a vendor (for a return, an over-charge, etc.) our accounting people would create a "charge-back." However, when they were simply charging someone, not a vendor, they also would call that a "charge-back." When I pointed out that the people being charged had not charged us originally and, therefore, it was simply a "charge," they didn't seem to understand the difference.
Tried to use an example of hitting someone versus retaliating by hitting them back, but they didn't seem to see the connection.
deaconB said
While passing through Findlay, you discover that you wife isn't aboard the tour bus. You return to Lima to get her before going on to Toledo. On the other hand, while you are in South Bend, you hear that your mother had a heart sattack, so you cancel the rest of the tour, so you can return back to Cincinnati.
I think you're straining to find a distinction where none exists:
My wife missed the bus, so I'm returning [going back] to Lima.
My mother had a heart attack, so I'm returning [going back] to Cincinnati.
Verbs of motion are often paired with prepositions (or various other complements) of questionable semantic value. I generally take them as providing a certain rhythm or grace.
Sit down.
Stand up.
Lie down.
Rise up.
Come here.
Go away.
And others.
Redundancy in English is common, and a colorful part of language. Redundancy has never been shunned by English. In fact, redundancy is often embraced as part of the poetry of our prose: free and clear, null and void, over and above, part and parcel, terms and conditions, fit and proper, meet and right.
Economy of words is not the supreme measure of the quality of the English.
Glenn said
Verbs of motion are often paired with prepositions (or various other complements) of questionable semantic value. I generally take them as providing a certain rhythm or grace.Sit down.
Stand up.
Lie down.
Rise up.
Come here.
Go away.
I'm not sure these are redundancies.
Sit down vs. Sit up.
Stand up vs. Stand down.
Lie down vs. the ambiguous Lie (don't tell the truth, or lie down).
Come here vs. Come away from the edge or Come in or Come out or Come back.
Glenn said
Verbs of motion are often paired with prepositions (or various other complements) of questionable semantic value. I generally take them as providing a certain rhythm or grace.
Sit down.
Stand up.
Lie down.
Rise up.
Come here.
Go away.
I used to have a tape of a jam session where my songwriting partner's sister came into the room at one time and suggested we take what we were playing and "slow it down". On the tape, one of us tells her we're rather "fast it up".
I want to clarify that the existence of other possible (and non-redundant) complements does not mean that some other complement can't be redundant in the way that pjbjd discusses above, with the verb without any complement. One can RETURN TO (one's home), or RETURN FROM (one's travels). That doesn't mean that RETURN BACK can't be redundant with RETURN, as pjbjd describes. Likewise, SIT and SIT DOWN are often identical in meaning, etc., despite the existence of SIT UP or SIT BACK or SIT FORWARD, which provide non-redundant information in the verb phrase.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)