Today's Wall Street Journal:
"These columns have been out front in documenting Mr. Koskinen’s failures after he promised to clean up the IRS following its political targeting of conservative nonprofits. Mr. Koskinen has failed to be candid with Congress and defied subpoenas. Documents requested by Congress were destroyed on his watch. He’s done nothing to reform the agency and he has supported a new draft regulation, now in temporary abeyance, that would reinforce the agency’s political vetting."

"temporary abeyance": is there any other kind of abeyance?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

Yes, if you also say things like "VIN number" or "PIN number."

You've been hiding too long, Shu!

It's like the River Rio Grande.

I think temporary is redundant. It's much like irregardless - the "ir" is redundant.

I have often noticed that legal parlance uses lots of tautologies in its texts: e.g., last will and testament, cease and desist, assault and battery, etc. What's the difference between this and deprecated pleonasms such as ATM machine or PIN number? A rhetorical device for emphasis?

How does this compare if Shakespeare's "most unkindest cut of all"?

As for neologisms like irregardless, when does the distaste they cause in a person's mouth expire? When did nice cease and desist its "silly" meaning and become more positive? [Hint: some time after the 17th century.]

To my (admittedly descriptivist) mind's eye, by the time people start complaining about something it's too late to reverse the inevitable change of the language.

[Edited to correct typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Good to see you here again, Z!

Perhaps the issue is that some don't see some of these terms every day, so when they do it's jarring despite their ignoring the peculiarity of the ones they're used to.

Shu can correct me if I'm (probably) wrong, but legal redundancies seem to be a "cover your ass" sort of speech, reducing the possibility of ambiguity.

Abeyance usually refers to a short time period, true, but not necessarily. For example, the title of Baron Camoys was called out of abeyance after 413 years. Hardly a short time and difficult to describe as temporary! See Wikipedia.

Good point, arnie. Ah - nice to see you again, z, and you are bringing us back to reality. I think there is a difference, though, from not preferring a particular word or phrase - and calling it "wrong." As for irregardless, clearly the "ir" and "less" are redundant, thus my dislike of the word. I know it's not wrong because it is, after all, in the OED. Not my favorite though. Good point about Shakespeare - that phrase definitely has a ring to it.