One assumes that you consider yourself preeminently qualified to provide said lessons . . .
:
0 Replies
stuh505
1
Reply
Thu 15 Dec, 2005 06:13 pm
Quote:
I feel that "of value" and "of use" are synonymous. Therefore, "of valuable use" would contain redundancy.
I see your point, but it isn't completely redundant.
Some thing's have a use which might not be considered "valuable"
0 Replies
M56
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:21 am
stuh505 wrote:
Quote:
I feel that "of value" and "of use" are synonymous. Therefore, "of valuable use" would contain redundancy.
I see your point, but it isn't completely redundant.
Some thing's have a use which might not be considered "valuable"
For example?
0 Replies
stuh505
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:36 am
Well, value is an arbitrary term. One person might consider cleanliness completely worthless. Therefore, they could consider a sponge's use to be of no value.
0 Replies
M56
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 06:36 pm
stuh505 wrote:
Well, value is an arbitrary term. One person might consider cleanliness completely worthless. Therefore, they could consider a sponge's use to be of no value.
Philosophy and English language learning are different animals.
0 Replies
stuh505
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:27 pm
So are bananas.
What's your point? I merely pointed out that "use" can be quantified, thus disproving your claim that the word "valuable" was semantically redundant.
0 Replies
M56
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 04:14 am
stuh505 wrote:
So are bananas.
What's your point? I merely pointed out that "use" can be quantified, thus disproving your claim that the word "valuable" was semantically redundant.
What is grammatically possible in language is not always probable in sense. Collocation is one major example of what is and is not acceptable to native speakers.
