Re: Heinlein

Daniel al-Autistiqui <govende30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> spake thusly:

But, regarding the phrase, do you guys think it is redundant? Can it
even be taken literally? Could one argue that it is not redundant
based on the fact that the first "strange" refers to a person and the
second one refers to a place?

I don't think one can look at the King James Bible in that way. The
book is redolent with phrases which are pleasing to the ear and which
stick in the mind. It was designed to be read aloud to and by the
ordinary people and the more melodious the prose, the more likely
that the words would stick. What might be considered "redundant" in
normal writing appears poetic in this context.

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is
vanity."

It is a great source of regret for me that British children no longer
hear this work read to them every day in school assembly, as happened
in my childhood.

--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heinlein
    ... Could one argue that it is not redundant ... > based on the fact that the first "strange" refers to a person and the ... The only way to decide is to look at the Hebrew text, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: rational number
    ... Stan Brown wrote: ... Identically equal is redundant when it refers to a pair of constants. ... Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.math)