Is this a pleaonasm?

No poll.

Just this question: Is the phrase "This law is more Liberal, in the classical sense, than the laws in may U.S. states" a pleonasm?

Isn't a pleonasm just using more words than is needed? Like all of my writing? =p

If so, the only part I could question is "in the classical sense", which, having read TheCessPit, seems an important point, as he thinks Americans use "liberal" differently than most of the world.

Quote: Face

Isn't a pleonasm just using more words than is needed? Like all of my writing? =p

I thought a pleonasm is repeating a word contained or implied within a sentence. For example PIN number, which means Personal Identification Number Number. ATM Machine, Banco BBVA Bancomer (that's the champion; it has the word "banco" in it three times: Banco Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Banco de Comercio).

Oh yeah, I remember this now.

I think it may be slightly redundant, but a weak example of it. Really, to get the full meaning of the sentence, I think you could only shave but one word and still make a proper sentence. Something like "This law is more Liberal, in the classical sense, than many in the U.S. states". In this example, all I could shave was the repeat of the word "law".

A pleonasm seems like an unnecessary repeat so extreme it makes no sense, like automated teller machine machine. I wouldn't call your example extreme, just mildly redundant.

Quote: Face

Oh yeah, I remember this now.

Something like "This law is more Liberal, in the classical sense, than many in the U.S. states". In this example, all I could shave was the repeat of the word "law".

How about "state"? ;)

You fell into the ATM machine trap, I'm afraid. consider "...than many in the Unites States states."

I could say instead "American states." But there's some reluctance to use "American" in other countries in the Americas to refer to the US. I don't much care, but it percolates through the culture I live in, and it's rather made itself at home in my mind.

No.

US is not merely an acronym. It doesn't make "US states" redundant.

US is a proper name, that also defines which states you're talking about.

Doesn't Mexico have states? Is "Mexican states" redundant?


In the example, using just US or United States could imply federal laws rather than state laws.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

US is a proper name, that also defines which states you're talking about.

I'm inclined to agree with DJ. It is listed as a noun in the Cambridge dictionary. While it was born as an abbreviation, it has come to mean the name of the country. The Reuters articles use the phrase "US States".

The acronym USA was used for most of the history of the country to mean United States Army. Starting in 1920 it became more commonly associated with "United States of America".

As I understand it, in the late 19th century the intellectuals in Latin America began to object to the use of the denonym American to refer exclusively to citizens of the "United States of America".

The use of the phrase "American" to refer to citizens of USA and not Canadians or anyone else was common from the earliest years of independence. At the time, the French journalists did raise some objections as they referred to the Caribbean islands as America as well. I've never seen anything that early from Spanish or Portuguese writers who objected to the demonym, but as they were still colonists of Spain and Portugal, they may not have any attachment to the term.

Quote: Pacomartin

It is listed as a noun in the Cambridge dictionary. While it was born as an abbreviation, it has come to mean the name of the country. The Reuters articles use the phrase "US States".

I t sill seems plaonasmic to me. Even if it's a noun, it does stand for something. It's not like the fabled "S" in Harry S. Truman, which is supposed to be just "S" and stands for nothing .

Quote:

The use of the phrase "American" to refer to citizens of USA and not Canadians or anyone else was common from the earliest years of independence.

At the time there were few other independent countries in the hemisphere, and none which had kicked out Britain (as far as I know). Prior to independence, the people in what is now the US were British subjects.

Quote: Nareed

At the time there were few other independent countries in the hemisphere, and none which had kicked out Britain (as far as I know). Prior to independence, the people in what is now the US were British subjects.

It was 24-25 years after US Independence that Haiti declared independence. Then the Spanish colonies, then Canada was formed by the British parliament after the US civil war. The British government assumed (probably correctly) that the US would try to take over Canada as long as it was a colony, but would respect it's sovereign status. All of the other former British colonies (Jamaica, Belize, Bahamas, St Kitts and Nevis, etc) became independent after WWII, but retained Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state.

France made all their colonists full citizens (as if they lived on the mainland), so they felt no need to become independent.

"American" became a demonym that signified that they had an identity other than British subjects. I believe Benjamin Franklin was the first prominent person to refer to himself as "An American". At any rate it was commonplace by 1812, long before the USA had any imperialist ambitions or capabilities.

On the night of the 18 May 1822, a mass demonstration led by the Regiment of Celaya, which Iturbide had commanded during the war, marched through the streets and demanded that their commander-in-chief accept the throne. The following day, the congress declared Iturbide emperor of Mexico. On 31 October Iturbide dissolved Congress and replaced it with a sympathetic junta.

The Mexican declaration of independence was a minor factor in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. The primary reason was Russia asserted rights to the Northwest in 1821.

Quote: Pacomartin

On the night of the 18 May 1822, a mass demonstration led by the Regiment of Celaya, which Iturbide had commanded during the war, marched through the streets and demanded that their commander-in-chief accept the throne. The following day, the congress declared Iturbide emperor of Mexico. On 31 October Iturbide dissolved Congress and replaced it with a sympathetic junta.

This illustrates radical differences in culture. In the US Washington could have made himself king, no questions raised. Instead he served two terms and quit, knowing full well no man should wield too much power, nor wield any power for very long. In Mexico the hero has himself crowned and immediately gets a rubber stamp.