|
|
 #2 (permalink) Tue Jun 24, 2008 23:21 pm is what it is |
|
|
I'd say it's generally redundant.
It's sort of akin to the ubiquitous (down here anyway) "at" in "Where are you at?"
"It's nonsense" (IMO) gets the point across just fine, as does "Where are you?"
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2621
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| #3 (permalink) Tue Jun 24, 2008 23:23 pm is what it is |
|
|
Though in its defense, I suppose "is what it is" does add a bit of emphasis in this case.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2621
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
| #4 (permalink) Tue Jun 24, 2008 23:27 pm is what it is |
|
|
| prezbucky wrote: |
I'd say it's generally redundant.
It's sort of akin to the ubiquitous (down here anyway) "at" in "Where are you at?"
"It's nonsense" (IMO) gets the point across just fine, as does "Where are you?" |
But does it occur in your variant?
How about "That's ridiculous, it is! Would you call such a tag redundant? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #5 (permalink) Tue Jun 24, 2008 23:56 pm is what it is |
|
|
No -- I don't hear things like "that's ridiculous, it is!"
I would refer to the "it is" as being redundant... but understandably used, I suppose, to add conviction.
These days there are new and (just as unnecessary, in many cases) add-ons:
"That's ridiculous, like totally!"
It's generally unnecessary to add things like that, IMO... but certainly not illegal.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2621
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| #6 (permalink) Tue Jun 24, 2008 23:59 pm is what it is |
|
|
| Quote: |
| These days there are new and (just as unnecessary, in many cases) add-ons: |
What do you mean by "unnecessary"? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #7 (permalink) Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:24 am is what it is |
|
|
In "I love you, like totally!", does "like totally" represent a meaningful piece of that sentence?
Or would "I love you!" generally suffice?
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2621
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
| #8 (permalink) Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:58 am is what it is |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In "I love you, like totally!", does "like totally" represent a meaningful piece of that sentence? |
Would "totally" also be unecessary here, IYO?
I love you totally.
And deeply here?
I love you deeply.
I love you, like deeply.
He loved here, and deeply.
Or would "I love you!" generally suffice?
If you're talking about syntax and semantics, maybe, but if you talk about semantics and pragmatics...
Regarding the latter pairing, you'd have to know a lot about the context to decide what was or was not necessary. As well as literal/basic meaning, you may need to consider communicative meaning, Prez. |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
|
| difference between choose and select | Why do you use the past tense to describe the subjunctive mood? |
