Is “as well” redundant
Is “as well” redundant and badly used here?A sentence needs your comment as follows:This accuse is not only lackbollocks but also inhuman to those who have accidentally involved as well.
If it is the emphasize case as you said, do you still think “as well” is redundant and badly used? If the answer is yes, why lawyers speak in such way so that almost everybody has ever heard of? Is there any much proper way to make people buy what you are going to emphasize?
Can we emphasize both the adjective part and subject at the same time? Like:
This accusation is not only lackbollocks but also inhuman to the principles, and please do not forget those who were involuntarily involved.
Do you mean you wouldn't say in this long trem-and please do not forget those who were involuntarily involved.' ,if you're a lawyer,because most judge don't buy that?
for no suit is a good suit?
- prisoner26535Lv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
This accuse is not only lackbollocks but also inhuman to those who have accidentally involved as well.
I think it is needed here to suggest the case be inhuman not only to the principals but also those who were involuntarily involved.
So, in short, there are 2 combinatorial phrases here:
1. lackbollocks and inhuman ...
2. inhuman to principals and those who have accidentally involved, even though the "principals" was omitted but understood.
2012-05-15 22:17:41 補充：
Well, I am not sure what others will get out of this statement - I just knew that this is commonly used by defense lawyers to move to dismiss the complaint against their client.
2012-05-15 22:20:17 補充：
They intentionally omit the mentioning of their client to signify the negative impacts of innocent 3rd parties but few judges actually bought it, for no law suit is a good suit.
2012-05-16 00:50:26 補充：
accuse ⇨⇨⇨⇨ accusation!
Agree! But I thought Master DH died when LAL lost to the Thunder.
2012-05-16 10:36:36 補充：
I never saw a normal person eat sesame, nor any one talking to Master DH after he jumped off the Staple center's roof. I saw a broken Cowboy's Helmet at the dumpster there.
2012-05-16 20:56:39 補充：
Nope, I meant the term is not redundant and it meant
"in addition to the principals".
2012-05-16 20:58:13 補充：
Can you write:
This accusation is not only lackbollocks but also inhuman to the principals, and please do not forget those who were involuntarily involved.
Please to my comments 007 and 008.
2012-05-16 20:58:43 補充：
I meant - please see comments 7, 8.
- 阿昌Lv 78 years ago
who have accidentally involved as well.
- 8 years ago
It just pumped out from the most annoying boaster in this forum. All of you have never seen it, however...see?:-P
Excellent point here! I haven't got enough fun of it yet,give me more,guys!
2012-05-16 09:59:44 補充：
Those who eat sesame cannot avoid dropping their crumbs..
Oh,Crumps! You won't accuse me for that.will u?
2012-05-16 11:45:03 補充：
Since when has Staple center's roof become a crime place?I'll eat sesame for anybody,please just don't kill me!
2012-05-16 20:44:47 補充：
Thank you,Master Kevin.
It's much much more fluent than the original.I would rather call it beautiful!
As for the word "lackbollocks", it's a typo ,Thank you for the correction.
2012-05-17 12:20:15 補充：
Glad to know you enjoy it too!
- Dark HelmetLv 78 years ago
Whatever the speaker meant to say, it won't sound right until you change the obvious : accuse ⇨⇨⇨⇨ accusation!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- KevinLv 78 years ago
May I ask about where the sentence came from?
2012-05-16 20:10:01 補充：
Since Master DH pointed out one of the troubles I have understanding the sentence, I might as well let out the others:
1. The verb "involve" doesn't seem to have an intransitive usage, so it might be better to say, "have been involved," or "are/were involved."
2012-05-16 20:10:09 補充：
2. Did you mean to say "lack bollocks?" If so, "lacking bollocks" would be better, for "lack" is a verb.
2012-05-16 20:16:19 補充：
As for whether the redundancy issue, I would say it depends on your context, if any. It's not redundant if the following sounds reasonable to you:
This accusation is not only lacking bollocks but also inhuman to those who have also been accidentally involved.
- DaSaGwaLv 78 years ago
personally, I would think so. In "not only ...but also ..." it already has "also" and "as well" means "also" in the sentence.
2012-05-15 21:29:15 補充：
I would use "not only .. but also ..." without "as well" or
" .... and ....as well", or " ... as well as ... ".
2012-05-15 21:32:03 補充：
I would treat "as well" in the questioned sentence as redundant. Even though occasionally, I heard people use that. I wonder whether the speaker just wanted to put an emphasis on it.
2012-05-15 21:43:59 補充：
On the other hand, "to those who have accidentally involved" is an infinitive phrase used as an adverb. When you use "as well", it indicates there is another thing "together" with this infinitive phrase . However, there is NONE.
2012-05-15 21:46:35 補充：
If it is used for "ballocks" and "inhuman", it already has "not only... but also..." to make such a connection, so I think it is redundant.
2012-05-15 22:05:46 補充：
master 26535! Your explanation is very nice. I like to know without your explanation, can people always get this kind of understanding, because the writer of this sentence has just "as well" in the end ?
2012-05-17 11:17:23 補充：
Yes! replacing "as well" with "also" really make the sentence much smoother than having "as well" in the end. I really appreciate this kind of discussion, it is so educational with all these masters joined.
2012-05-17 11:18:05 補充：
master Geoffrey! You need to come up with this kind of question more often, so we can all have fun !!!