'Fellow Countryman'

[Lorcan]

I have often heard the above used (often sports commentators). Is it not tautological? Is it technically OK to use?

[dr john]

Not really tautological - neither word would mean much on its own. 'Compatriot' would probably be better, though few sports commentators would be liely to use it.

[Quizmonster]

It is tautological, but - strangely enough - Chambers Dictionary's entry for 'countryman' reads (quote)..."a man who lives in the country, a man belonging to the same country, fellow countryman". So, you'd be in good company if you used the phrase!

[Quizmonster]

Ah! As you can see, Dr John, our answers are identically timed, so my response was not offered as a direct disagreement with yours!

[matt_london1]

Thanks! I've just learnt a new word that I've never heard before and can't wait to wind my mates up with it tonight. (and yes the above sentance was deliberate ;-)

[Count_Emmup]

It's definitely not tautological, but it is pleonastic.

[THECORBYLOON]

Pleonasm is the use of more words than are needed to express something.Tautologies are pleonasms but the reverse is not true. For example, in �Take it off of the table.� there is no need for the "of," it is pleonastic but not tautological.

These are the online Chamber�s 21st Century Dictionary definitions of �fellow� and �countryman.�

FELLOW �as adj relating to a person in the same situation or condition as oneself, or having the same status, etc � a fellow citizen � a fellow worker � a fellow countryman.�

COUNTRYMAN �someone belonging to a particular country, especially the same country as oneself.�

Count_Emmup, why is the phrase �fellow countryman� definitely not an example of tautology?

[Count_Emmup]

My dictionary defines tautology as 'the use of two (or more) words with the same meaning'; and pleonasm as the 'use of more words than are required to convey the meaning'.

Since "Fellow" and "Countryman", do not have the same definition (eg 'fellow' traveller, 'fellow' author etc); it is apparent that it is use of too many words rather than use of two words with the identical meaning.

Thus "Fellow traveller" is a pleonasm.

[Count_Emmup]

Actually, the first paragraph of your previous posting is a perfect summary of mine - given that 'fellow' and 'traveller' are not synonymous!

dr John's first posting is also confirmation.

[Count_Emmup]

Sorry, I meant, "Fellow countryman", is a pleonasn; obviously "Fellow traveller", isn't!

[THECORBYLOON]

Would you say "Two twins" is tautology?

[Quizmonster]

If you say someone is "a countryman of mine", you mean that he and you are 'fellows' as far as nationality is concerned. That is what I imagine TCL is now - and I was earlier - getting at. We both take the view that the one, as it were, subsumes the other and that using both is, therefore, unnecessary. (Or tautological...or even pleonastic...what the hey!)

Re dictionaries, here are parts of what two of the key ones say about tautology...
a) Chambers: "...use of words...that repeat something already implied..."
b)The Oxford English Dictionary: "...a repetition of...the same idea...in other words"
That is, we are dealing here with implications and ideas which are, by definition, fluid and different people might well see them in different lights.

The main thing is that Chambers seems quite happy to use the phrase 'fellow countryman' as pointed out earlier, so we might just as well leave it at that.

[THECORBYLOON]

I have never claimed to be an expert in the English language and I will bow to those who are more learned but I would say it is a draw in this case.

What about "added bonus" or "abseil down?"

[THECORBYLOON]

I've just noticed an answer I posted at 12.59 has been banned, I have no idea why it's been removed.

[Count_Emmup]

What about "added bonus" or "abseil down"? Would you say "Two twins" is a tautology"?

All of them are emphatically pleonasms; as are "Free gift" and "For free".


Quizmonster, "The main thing is that Chambers seems quite happy to use the phrase 'fellow countryman' as pointed out earlier, so we might just as well leave it at that".

We'll decide when we wish to "Leave it at that", Quizmonster, and we won't seek your consent to continue or not.

[Count_Emmup]

They aren't tautologies because the two words aren't synonyms; but 'added', 'two' and 'for', (in the above context) are totally superfluous. They all can be employed in a context with no relevance whatever to 'bonus', 'twins' and 'gift'.

That is the difference - all tautologies are (in a sense) pleonastic, but pleonasms are not necessarily tautologous.

'Tiny, little flower' and 'mindless, senseless cruelty', are tautologies

[Quizmonster]

I didn't say you had to leave it at that...I specifically said (quote) "we might just as well". You even copied my words down and emboldened them!
It's perfectly clear - at least to me - that neither 'side' here is likely to convince the other, so jacking it seemed like a good idea.
In other words, the matter of my 'consent' does not arise and most assuredly was not suggested by me. It is an irrelevance and - with a bit of verbal sleight of tongue/brain, one might almost call it a tautology!

And there I give myself consent to leave it.

[jno]

mindless and senseless are synonyms? I may talk nonsense without losing my mind. Often do, in fact.

[Quizmonster]

Don't worry about your 'banned' answer, TCL...my latest one has been jacked, too! Goodness knows why, given that it was just a polite response to something specifically addressed to me! The AnswerBank seems to be going through a peculiar phase at the moment.

[Quizmonster]

Something really weird is going on here! When I posted the response timed at 1056 above, the earlier one timed at 1632 was not on the answer-page and nor was J's one!
I contacted the AB Ed today to point out that there were strange goings-on afoot re my responses in general and was assured that all was now rectified, but that is far from the case.
Maybe it's just something adrift with my computer and I'm just too much of a computer-illiterate to see what it is.