At least two or more
Is the “or more” bit above ever not redundant? Seems absolutely redundant to me, but it gets about 170 million Google hits, and many from government sites and university sites.
I suppose it’s conceivable that there should be a situation in which I might want to indicate a requirement of “at least two or more” of something (for example, “Elements of this kind must be defined as requiring at least two or more attributes”), but I’m really stretching credibility here. I’m inclined to suggest that in upwards of 99.9% of those 170 million occurrences this usage will prove to be an inelegant redundancy.
The fact that this concept seems to be a bit difficult for some people to understand amply demonstrates the obscure nature of the stipulation!
The set of “things that require at least two or more of something” may be defined as the union of the set of “things that require two or more of something,” the set of “things that require three or more of something,” the set of “things that require four or more of something” and so on. An unusual thing to want to say, certainly, but not totally inconceivable (in the context, for example, of formal language schemes or similar constructs).
Is that perhaps a little clearer?
|show 1 more comment|
To answer your specific question, i.e. is the "or more" bit ever not redundant - it would not be redundant if the "at least" bit was redundant :-)