English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

(I made a search for this question on this forum but surprisingly did not find related questions. Which is odd because surely this question is asked often.)

First, the sentence I'm trying to use redundant/superfluous in:

From what I know, fiction is created from fantasy by people you call authors. At the risk of sounding discourteous let me say that I do not trust fantasies. Life is not a fabrication played out on stage. This is why I feel people who write fiction are redundant. I myself never speak of things I have not experienced firsthand.

I was told that 'superfluous' would be a better word choice in place of 'redundant' because using 'redundant' would suggest that the speaker is scornful of only those 'authors' who are 'extra' when he is scornful of 'all' authors. But using 'superfluous' here sounds simply odd to me.

OED gives the definitions of the two words as:

redundant (adjective) - not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous: an appropriate use for a redundant church many of the old skills had become redundant

superfluous (adjective) - unnecessary, especially through being more than enough: the purchaser should avoid asking for superfluous information

This site explains them as:

Superfluous (from Latin, and literally meaning “overflowing” — the second part of the compound is related to fluid) means “extra, more than is necessary.”

Redundant has the same literal meaning as superfluous — the second part of the compound is related to wave — and the identical basic connotation, though it also has the senses of repetition, abundance, or extravagance, or duplication as a safety measure.

The more I try to dig into the meanings and connotations of these words the more I'm left confused. Any inputs on this?

share|improve this question
1  
On an unrelated (or perhaps distantly related) point of interest, I have to wonder what it is you are trying to say about people who write fiction. It sounds rather derogatory. Do you think fiction writing is pointless? Do you think fiction writers are silly, misguided, or wasting their time? If you do indeed feel anything of the sort, I would suggest that your understanding of the intentions of fiction writers, and of the purpose and value of fiction, really could stand quite a tremendous amount of improvement. – John M. Landsberg Mar 31 '13 at 5:09
2  
@JohnM.Landsberg : Umm, this is embarrassing. These are not my words, just a text I'm translating. I have the deepest respect for writers. This is simply what one particular character in the story thinks. – Soulz Mar 31 '13 at 8:47
    
Thank you for this clarification. I'm glad to hear it. – John M. Landsberg Mar 31 '13 at 8:57
    
Repeated vs extra. Not at all the same thing. – Drew Jan 10 at 6:38
up vote 8 down vote accepted

"Redundant" involves repetition. In the following example, there are two examples of redundancy: "This blue, azure shirt is torn and ripped." Blue and azure are redundant, and torn and ripped are redundant. Note that these redundancy pairs do not include words that are exactly synonymous, but which are close enough in meaning that one would usually consider them redundant. Two points here: 1. Neither word in such a pair is necessarily the redundant one; either one can be considered redundant, depending on which one you consider to be the more important, useful, or accurate one in the given context. Commonly, the second word is considered the redundant one, but that is merely because the first word got a chance to establish itself before the second one came along; if you were revising the text, you might choose to keep the second, not the first. 2. The same word repeated ("this blue blue shirt") is an example of redundancy, but this is usually done for emphasis, or for poetic effect, and so is seldom saddled with the accusation of redundancy. Thus, "redundant" does tend to carry the implication of an unnecessary repetition.

A tip: To help you remember this, note that "redundant" begins with "re," as in "repetition." That piece of these words means "again."

"Superfluous," on the other hand, refers to something that is more than what is necessary. Think of water running over the rim of a glass when you continue to pour water into it beyond its capacity. The water over- (super) flows (fluous). Often something superfluous is so because it is needlessly repetitive, and this confuses the picture a bit. But in my opinion, "superfluous" is better used when the element is not repetitive, but is genuinely not needed, as in this example: "After George embedded the fence post in thirty pounds of concrete buried underground, the brick he balanced atop the post to hold it down was superfluous."

share|improve this answer
    
Beautifully explained. I'm not likely to forget the difference again. Thanks :) – Soulz Mar 31 '13 at 8:51
    
You're very welcome! – John M. Landsberg Mar 31 '13 at 8:57
1  
This answer is redundant but not superfluous (good examples) – bobobobo Mar 31 '13 at 17:03
1  
@bobobobo LOL! And agreed. +1 Sometimes, indeed, I wouldn't answer a question if I could see the answers that were in the pipeline as I was writing my answer, but which hadn't been posted when I began writing. – John M. Landsberg Apr 1 '13 at 2:02
    
So redundant is more like tautological and superfluous is more like pleonastic? – SadBunny Dec 1 '15 at 0:31

Redundancy has to involve something repeated, while superfluous refers to something that's not really needed.

To make a pointed example:

"We already have an answer that says the same thing -- this answer is redundant"

Works. And,

"We already have an answer that says the same thing -- this answer is superfluous"

Works as well, but the latter part does not imply that this answer says the same thing as the other sentence. Superfluous only says this answer is extra.

"We don't have any other answers but this answer is downright wrong -- keeping this wrong answer is superfluous"

Eah, kinda works but not the best word choice.

"We don't have any other answers but this answer is downright wrong -- keeping this wrong answer is redundant"

Redundant to what? This last sentence does not work, redundancy requires repetition.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the answer :) – Soulz Mar 31 '13 at 8:52

Sometimes redundant and superfluous are not interchangeably synonymous. Language, for example, is filled with redundancies because people feel that they're necessary, not superfluous. It's clear from looking at these images of No Smoking signs that including both the words and the image is redundant, but it should also be clear that it's not necessarily superfluous: some people can't read English, and others may not understand the icon.

Your use of redundant in the example sentence is, I think, not correct, and whoever said that superfluous is "a better word choice" is correct, IMHO.

If you believe that there's no point in fiction because it's based on the fantasies (rather than the creative imaginations) of fiction writers, then you must think that it's unnecessary; ergo, superfluous is a better word choice.

If you use redundant, however, you probably mean either that there are too many fiction writers (in which case only some fiction writers are redundant), or that fiction itself is unnecessary because we all live our own "real" everyday lives and don't need to read the details of someone else's phantasmagoric everyday life (in which case fiction itself -- what fiction writers create -- is unnecessary).

I find your use of redundant strange, non-idiomatic, and unnatural; superfluous sounds right to my ears.

share|improve this answer
    
The redundancy or superfluity must be with respect to something. – bobobobo Mar 31 '13 at 2:14
    
@bobobobo: Yes, that's true, and my answer says exactly that. – user21497 Mar 31 '13 at 4:36
    
Thanks for replying :) – Soulz Mar 31 '13 at 8:51

I'm inclined to think that neither is appropriate. It seems the author wishes to indicate that authors of fiction are unnecessary, or perhaps even dangerous; as though they're corrupting perceptions of reality. An interesting thought, but I'd stick with unnecessary in this context.

share|improve this answer

The difference between redundant and superfluous. Redundant:unnecessarily repeating something (merriam-webster.com). Redundant:repetition that is unnecessary (thefreedictionary.com) Redundant: useless repetitiveness (wordreference.com)

The second and third definitions of redundant are redundant. The first definition is clear. The next two definitions repeat the first definition using slightly different wording, but without providing any new information. They are unnecessary.

Superfluous: exceeding what is sufficient or necessary; going beyond what is enough (merriam-webster.com, thefreedictionary.com, wordreference.com, dictionary.reference.com, thesaurus.com, oxforddictionaries.com, yourdictionary.com, macmillandictionary.com, ollinsdictionary.com, etymonline.com)

A reference can be used as evidentiary support to validate the credibility of a statement. The use of more than two, however, is superfluous and should be avoided.

share|improve this answer
    
Something that is redundant, or a redundant occurrence of something, is not necessarily "unnecessary". It is simply something that is repeated. Whether the repetition is needed depends on the meaning and context. – Drew Jan 10 at 6:40
    
Unnecessary repetition is the definition of redundant. I cited three references to support the statement. There are secondary definitions that indicate redundant is synonymous with superfluous and vise versa. Context and connotation my friend. I hear you there. – Jenine Conrad Jan 12 at 2:15
    
Sorry, I disagree (even if it means disagreeing with some references). "Redundant" can mean unnecessary repetition. But it can also mean just repetition/duplication. In "alpha alpha", "alpha" is redundant (IMO). A redundant computer (e.g., as a backup mirror) is not unnecessary. – Drew Jan 12 at 2:28
    
Totally true. There are several definitions of redundant and superfluous. I will never debate about the definition of a word. Never. These words existed hundreds of years before I came on the scene. – Jenine Conrad Jan 12 at 3:17
    
This is the original question that was posed. >The more I try to dig into the meanings and connotations of these words the more I'm left confused. Any inputs on this? – Jenine Conrad Jan 12 at 3:20

I am just interpreting this in the way I understand. Let us take the example of a teacher marking an essay. Many a time the teacher finds that the students instead of moving from one point in an essay to another, for want of matter may try to camouflage his lack of knowledge of the subject by wording the same thing differently. The teacher however sees through it and notices that it is redundant. Many a time student thinks being ostentatious will put her into more prominence. So displays her vocabulary in her essay. The teacher finds it distracting and sickening as too many words just hamper and don't help in elucidation. The teacher doesn't think it is redundant but superfluous or excessive or bordering on bombast. If we are in an orchard of a scientist: he may have planted oranges of various variety. When planting he comes across the same species that has been offered for planting but which he has already studied. He may cast this aside telling that it is redundant.
When many people bring forth the same variety for sampling he doesn't think it is redundant but the variety to be superfluous hinting at its availability. On the other hand species which prove to be rare in nature may show themselves to be redundant.

share|improve this answer

If you have 2 or more and you only need 1 then the additional items are redundant. If you have 1 and you don't need any then the item is superfluous.

share|improve this answer
    
That's a take on it, not one I think is true. – Matt E. Эллен Jan 15 '15 at 12:58
    
I think it's true, but not really appropriate as an "answer". – Hot Licks Jan 15 '15 at 13:04
    
@HotLicks- If you have 2 and you only need 1 but the 1 extra can be used to replace the first if it goes bad, then the additional 1 is redundant. If you have 2 and there is a place for only 1 and once used the additional one can never be used, then it is superfluous. – Jim Jan 22 '15 at 6:00

protected by Rathony May 23 at 23:41

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.