Second usage of verb redundant?

Question

Is the second usage of execute necessary, or can it be omitted?

I find the second usage to be redundant but i'm not sure if it is correct to omit it. Which one is more concise, if both are correct?

An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code that he did not intend to [execute].

but the phrase itself is redundant too. "accidentally" and "without intend" are the same thing. You could leave it as: "An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code", and you'll have the same meaning — Brian H., Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 15:57
Since "Accidentally" means "without intending to", the entire that-phrase is redundant, and "An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code" is sufficient. — Hellion, Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 15:57
You are right. Still, if the phrase weren't redundant in itself, would the word be redundant or is it needed? — Mark G, Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 16:02
We would not say "An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code that he did not intend to execute." Better if you don't mind ending with to: "An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code without intending to." As for your question of conciseness, you answered that by saying one version has fewer words. — Yosef Baskin, Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 16:43

user3382203 · Accepted Answer · 2017-03-01 17:51:46Z

-1

No, it's not redundant.

An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code that he did not intend to execute.

In technical statements like the one above, it is advisable to specify all the details (clear the ambiguity) that could otherwise be misinterpreted.

answered Mar 1, 2017 at 17:51

user3382203

5613 gold badges7 silver badges16 bronze badges

So technically the second execute can be omitted but should not be in this case since it is a technical document and clarity goes above fance wording?
– Mark G
Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 18:21
1

This answer is wrong. It is certainly redundant, in that the meaning is the same with or without it. The fact that it might be desirable to include it (whether for clarity or for prosody) does not make it not redundant.
– Colin Fine
Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 18:40
A better way to use redundancy than to repeat yourself is to use contrast for emphasis: "You must pay in cash, not by check or credit." In such a case, the extra words may seem redundant but counter obvious questions like "What about a credit card?'" "An unaware user cannot accidentally execute code, only deliberately."
– Yosef Baskin
Commented Mar 1, 2017 at 19:41

Add a comment |

1 Answer 1