Doesn't sound redundant to me. There's an overlap in meaning, but the phrases "for the time being" and "on the back burner" aren't synonymous in my idiolect. Consider the difference between, "For the time being, I have put that aside" (I am not even thinking about it) and "For the time being, it's on the back burner" (still cooking, just not the focus of attention at the moment." John On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David: Do carry on. > > > > I just wrote to someone: "For the time being it's on the back burner." > > Was that a redundant sentence? > > Full disclosure: the complete text of my message was: "For the time being > it's on the back burner. (Is that a redundant sentence?)" > > Does my calling attention to its redundancy make the sentence even more > redundant? And in the meta-narrative of this post, asking this very > question, am I further increasing the redundancy of that sentence? > > Are there degrees of redundancy? Can one statement be more tautological > than another tautological statement? Is the phrase "listening-type music" > more or less redundant than the abstract "A=A when A=A"? > > Is the notion of the self the ultimate redundancy? > > And what's this curious sense of a relation between redundancy and > repetition? > > Where would any art be without repetition? No first movement of Beethoven's > Pastoral Symphony. No series of Rembrandt self-portraits. No villanelles, > refrains, or sestinas. Forget all those Rodin Balzacs. Just a bunch of rude > and impatient people demanding something new ... but only once. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN Tel. +81-45-314-9324 jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.wordworks.jp/