12.29.08
Borderline redundancy
Today’s visit to the land of Redundanstan:
Pakistan told India on Saturday [12/27/2008] it [Pakistan] did not want war and was committed to fighting terrorism — a move apparently aimed at reducing tensions after Pakistan moved troops toward their shared border.
I’m thankful for the specificity of the last two words there, because so many countries have unshared borders. Maybe the writer thought that the Pakistanis were playing “6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon Geography.” Pakistan has a border with Afghanistan, which has a border with HardyOliverandLaurelStan, who starred in Sons of the Desert, which is often misspelled as dessert, which is often served at Thanksgiving, a celebration at which families usually serve turkey, a country that has a city named Isparta, which is the place that first grew organic iPods, which were subsequently made in China, which has a border (likely shared) with India.
Glad we cleared that up.
, 
and 
. Feel free to 
The Ridger said,
December 29, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I don’t get it. Sure, it’s redundant, but if you take out “shared” it’s unclear which border Pakistan is moving troops towards, especially for those of us who accept “their” for “Pakistan”. Adding that one word removes all doubt.
Bill Brohaugh said,
December 30, 2008 at 9:18 am
I submit that context sufficiently implies the common border. India is unlikely to be concerned about Pakistani troops heading to the Afghan border, particularly since such movement is typical.
I’m all for adding words to lock down clarity. But if taking that route, employ precision and not redundancy: “the Pakistan-India border” or “the countries’ border.”
goofy said,
December 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I don’t see the harm in it. Redundancy is an essential feature of language anyway.
The Ridger said,
January 1, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Why is “shared border” less ‘precise’ than “India-Pakistan border”?
JohnnyB said,
January 2, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I have to agree that the redundancy here is helpful and even a case of writing tight. “their border” could mean Pakistan’s border, India’s border or both their borders, which happen to be the same on one side. Some readers may not know that India and Pakistan share a border and “their shared border” neatly imparts that information (without having to add another sentence or clause) while providing clarity – no one has pause to make sure they got the right meaning of “their”.
Bill Brohaugh said,
January 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm
goofy, Ridger, JohnnyB: Uncle. Points well taken; points conceded. I still prefer other approaches, but I’ll allow that it’s a matter of taste.
Mr Fnortner said,
January 4, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Actually the redundancy is not nearly as frightening as the internal inconsistency in the phrase “did not want war and was committed to fighting terrorism,” oh, and the phrase “aimed at reducing tensions…moved troops toward their shared border,” both apparently stated with a straight face. Orwell would be proud.