After listening to a news program, I checked the dictionary to see if I'd heard correctly. The announcer said a person was "being extradited back" to his home country. However, "extradite" seems to be all-encompassing (turn over to the jursidiction of another country or entity) and doesn't need "back". Or am I wrong?
Give a man a fish and he can eat for one day; give a man a fishing pole and he will find an excuse to never work again. Nollidj is power.
I agree, it doesn't need "back". But that doesn't mean "extradite back" is wrong - imo, redundancy is useful because it can ensure the message gets thru despite background noise, inattention, etc.This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
Sure it might sound awkward, but "awkward" doesn't mean "incorrect" I don't have a problem with it in casual speech and writing but your mileage may vary.This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
He is being extradited back to Israel to face war crimes charges.
He is being extradited to Israel to face war crimes charges.
I don't think these sentences are equivalent. I can think of cases in which one would apply and the other wouldn't. I guess you could argue that "home country" makes it redundant, but "back" seems to emphasize that he came from there to here, rather than from a third country.
Extradition is the sending of someone to another country to stand trial in that other country.
Someone needn't even have to have been in the country of extradition, so 'back' need not be redundant. For instance, there was some fuss over here a while back because our courts were asked to extradite a UK national to the USA to face charges of hacking into the Pentagon's computer systems using the Internet and his computer over here.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.