Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Send 'em back Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of Proofreader
posted
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.
 
Posts: 6194 | Location: Rhode IslandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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,
 
Posts: 2441Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Goofy, you're a linguist and I'm just a chainsaw mechanic, but to my untrained ear the redundancy sounds awkward.


It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
 
Posts: 5183 | Location: Muncie, IndianaReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Sure it might sound awkward, but "awkward" doesn't mean "incorrect" Smile 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,
 
Posts: 2441Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I see your point, goofy. However, to me, "extradited back" does sound funny. It's nothing to do with being "too prescriptive;" it just seems odd to me. Perhaps it's a regionalism.
 
Posts: 24164 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 1242 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I changed my mind, I agree with neveu and arnie.
 
Posts: 2441Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Proofreader
posted Hide Post
Not to belabor the point, but a later update on the same story had the announcer saying, "He was returned back to the US." Isn't that even more redundant?


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.
 
Posts: 6194 | Location: Rhode IslandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
I changed my mind, I agree with neveu and arnie.
I, too, stand corrected.
 
Posts: 24164 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jazzboCR:
BTW, isn't "a later update" redundant? Just asking...

Perhaps it is in this case, but I don't think it is in all cases. There can be several updates, and one is bound to be later than another.
 
Posts: 2802 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright © 2002-12