Editing Pleonasm (section)

===Subtler redundancies===
In some cases, the redundancy in meaning occurs at the syntactic level above the word, such as at the phrase level:

: "It's [[déjà vu]] all over again."
: "I never make predictions, especially about the future."

The redundancy of these two well-known statements is deliberate, for [[humor]]ous effect. (See {{section link|Yogi Berra#"Yogi-isms"}}.) But one does hear educated people say "my predictions about the future of politics" for "my predictions about politics", which are equivalent in meaning. While predictions are necessarily about the future (at least in relation to the time the prediction was made), the nature of this future can be subtle (e.g., "I predict that he died a week ago"—the prediction is about future discovery or proof of the date of death, not about the death itself). Generally "the future" is assumed, making most constructions of this sort pleonastic. The latter humorous quote above about not making predictions—by [[Yogi Berra]]—is not really a pleonasm, but rather an [[irony|ironic]] [[play on words]].
Alternatively it could be an analogy between predict and guess.

However, "It's ''déjà vu'' all over again" could mean that there was earlier another ''déjà vu'' of the same event or idea, which has now arisen for a third time; or that the speaker had very recently experienced a ''déjà vu'' of a different idea.

Redundancy, and "useless" or "nonsensical" words (or phrases, or morphemes), can also be inherited by one language from the influence of another and are not pleonasms in the more critical sense but actual changes in grammatical construction considered to be required for "proper" usage in the language or dialect in question. [[Irish English]], for example, is prone to a number of constructions that non-Irish speakers find strange and sometimes directly confusing or silly:
* "I''''m after''' put'''ting''' it on the table."<br />('I [have] put it on the table.') This example further shows that the effect, whether pleonastic or only pseudo-pleonastic, can apply to words and word-parts, and multi-word phrases, given that the fullest rendition would be "I '''am after''' put'''ting''' it on the table".
* "Have a look at '''your''' man there."<br />('Have a look at that man there.') An example of word substitution, rather than addition, that seems illogical outside the dialect. This common possessive-seeming construction often confuses the non-Irish enough that they do not at first understand what is meant. Even "'''Have a '''look at that man''' there'''" is arguably further doubly redundant, in that a shorter "Look at that man" version would convey essentially the same meaning.
* "She's my wife''' so she is'''."<br />('She's my wife.') Duplicate subject and verb, post-complement, used to emphasize a simple factual statement or assertion.

All of these constructions originate from the application of [[Irish Gaelic]] grammatical rules to the English dialect spoken, in varying particular forms, throughout the island.

Seemingly "useless" additions and substitutions must be contrasted with similar constructions that are used for stress, humor, or other intentional purposes, such as:
* "I abso'''-fuckin'-'''lutely agree!"<br />([[tmesis]], for stress)
* "Topless'''-shmopless'''—nudity doesn't distract me."<br />([[shm-reduplication]], for humor)

The latter of these is a result of Yiddish influences on modern English, especially [[East Coast of the United States|East Coast]] US English.

Sometimes editors and grammatical stylists will use "pleonasm" to describe simple wordiness. This phenomenon is also called [[prolixity]] or [[logorrhea (rhetoric)|logorrhea]]. Compare:
* "The sound of the [[loud music]] drowned out the sound of the burglary."
* "The loud music drowned out the sound of the burglary."
or even:
* "The music drowned out the burglary."

The reader or hearer does not have to be told that loud music has a sound, and in a newspaper headline or other abbreviated prose can even be counted upon to infer that "burglary" is a proxy for "sound of the burglary" and that the music necessarily must have been loud to drown it out, unless the burglary was relatively quiet (this is not a trivial issue, as it may affect the legal culpability of the person who played the music); the word "loud" may imply that the music should have been played quietly if at all. Many are critical of the excessively abbreviated constructions of "[[headline]]-itis" or "[[News style|newsspeak]]", so "loud [music]" and "sound of the [burglary]" in the above example should probably not be properly regarded as pleonastic or otherwise genuinely redundant, but simply as informative and clarifying.

Prolixity is also used to obfuscate, confuse, or euphemize and is not necessarily redundant or pleonastic in such constructions, though it often is. "Post-traumatic stress disorder" ([[shell shock]]) and "pre-owned vehicle" ([[used car]]) are both [[wikt:tumid|tumid]] euphemisms but are not redundant. Redundant forms, however, are especially common in business, political, and academic language that is intended to sound impressive (or to be vague so as to make it hard to determine what is actually being promised, or otherwise misleading). For example: "This quarter, we are presently focusing with determination on an all-new, innovative integrated methodology and framework for rapid expansion of customer-oriented external programs designed and developed to bring the company's consumer-first paradigm into the marketplace as quickly as possible."

In contrast to redundancy, an [[oxymoron]] results when two seemingly contradictory words are adjoined.