For example:
We're currently overbooked at the moment.
-
4I guess it is!! We are currently overbooked! or, we are overbooked at the moment, are clear enough!!– user66974Commented Aug 12, 2014 at 5:48
-
2Sure, but language is always redundant to varying extents. Redundancy is usually good.– curiousdanniiCommented Aug 12, 2014 at 7:32
-
1@curiousdannii is it good in this case?– CalvinCommented Aug 12, 2014 at 14:11
-
I'd call it neutral in this case.– curiousdanniiCommented Aug 12, 2014 at 22:55
-
It's kind of redundant, but if you were then going to discuss the future situation, then you might use "at the moment" as a way of leading into that discussion. Not worth getting in a tizz about anyhow.– Stuart FCommented Sep 10 at 12:48
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
Yes, it is redundant since "currently" and "at the moment" mean the same thing. Instead, you could say either:
We're currently overbooked.
or
We're overbooked at the moment.
"Currently at the moment" (as a lot of people say)is redundant and a typical example where it has become fashionable to use "currently" and people add it regardless. These things usually disappear when the word (e.g. 'currently') goes out of fashion. Permanent fixtures also exist: It's raining outside...
We're currently overbooked at the moment.
In this construction the words "currently" and "at the moment" both approximate to "now" and indeed one of the modifiers is redundant.
However, consider
Hotel Manager: "How are the bookings going?"
Receptionist: "At the moment, we're currently overbooked but I am expecting cancellations because of the rail strike."
Here, it is not so clear that there is redundancy. "At the moment" = "at the time of your asking"; "currently overbooked" is a known state and familiar phrase but will be temporary.
This construction is not objectionable.
You should also take note of the comment by tchrist in another post:
Many questions along the lines of "Is XXX YYY redundant?" assume that redundancy is somehow a bad thing or a superfluous thing or a sloppy thing. They presuppose that a "yes" answer would somehow mean something is "wrong" that needs to be "corrected" by one or another piece being removed. As this answer observes, “So though it's redundant, it does not mean it's not a useful and acceptable way to express an idea more clearly.” See the Wikipedia article about all this.
It's redundant routinely to use 'currently' with the present tense, just as it's wrong to use 'previously' with the past tense. 'We are overbooked' and 'We are currently overbooked' mean the same, just as 'we were previously overbooked' and 'we were overbooked' mean the same. The only point in using the adverb is to emphasise something temporary e.g. 'We are currently overbooked but we expect that to change shortly.'
Beware redundancy in language. There is no difference in meaning between 'Please keep all your belongings with you' and 'Please keep your belongings with you'. You can spot redundant words by posing the question 'As opposed to...?' 'Please keep all your belongings with you' as opposed to 'Please keep some of your belongings with you'?
-
2You’re lumping in emphasis as ‘redundancy’, which of course it is not. There’s a difference of emphasis between “your belongings” and “all your belongings”, just like between “I need a haircut” and “I really need a haircut”. There is also a difference in meaning between “We are overbooked” and “We are currently overbooked”: the former does not imply that the overbooking is temporary and can also mean “We are [permanently] overbooked”, which would (in your logic) lead to the conclusion that “We are currently overbooked” means the same as “We are permanently overbooked”. Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 18:29