Also, “false pretense” began as a legal term which is probably how it gained popular usage. I assume it’s use is more to distinguish the falsehood as being one of pretense rather than some other type of fraud. In other words, it was the pretense that was fraudulent, not the promise or the act. Married under false pretenses meaning that the marriage may actually have been valid, but the one party may have been “induced” by a fraud…as opposed to a fraudulent marriage in which the marriage itself is invalid because the priest was a con-artist or whatever…

What I’m noticing is that a lot of comments are more likely related to superfluous modifiers than actual redundancies (very unique, ink pen, very historic). I would also say that things like “with au jus” and “Los Angeles Angels” are not strictly speaking tautologies since the exist in the English language as proper nouns or some type of borrowed word. If “El Camino Street” were just called “El Camino,” or “The Street,” that would be kind of confusing. Likewise, a French Dip Sandwich au jus would be strange, even if in some way grammatically correct, because “au jus” isn’t a borrowed term for “with juice” like “a la mode” is for “with ice cream”. It’s a term specifically referring to the juice served with a French Dip Sandwich…or whatever. (Incidentally, I believe “a la mode” means “in the style.”)

@Cindy: as perfect can mean “fitting its definition precisely” and things can be more precise or more fitting, why can’t they be more perfect?

@Amory: I can sort of understand extreme proximity, but what is “great proximity”? Close proximity seems to make more sense. If a murderer is in the proximity of my house, I might want to know whether that’s close proximity or not…but if you said great proximity…I would be confused. Super proximity I would get my shotgun.

@bagman: “over exaggerate” (an exaggeration in its own right) is probably a tautology (”over overstate”), but it implies there is an acceptable amount of exaggeration, and then there’s going to far…it may not be redundant from that perspective.

@Diane: a Thesis statement is a particular type of statement, so like “over exaggerate,” I think it could be a tautology, but it’s also in some way a technical term to differentiate from Thesis papers, or other statements within a thesis paper that are not theses, and indicating also that it requires supporting arguments (which not all statements do).

First invented, first introduced could be tautologies, but what about barbed wire or the automobile where several people are credited with the invention at around the same time, but one of them was first. First met seems also to depend on usage. If you say “the first time I met Mark,” meaning the first time you were acquainted with him, that may be redundant. However, if you say “I first met Mark at the university. Several years later we met again while hob-knobbing in D.C…” and mean “came into contact with” where your first meeting may also imply getting acquainted, I don’t think it’s tautological at all.

A few people seem to be implying that “prolific tautologist” is a tautology. I don’t see how “prolific tautologist” is redundant…

If it’s new how can it be a tradition already?

SALT Talks = Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Talks

Statement statement?

VIN number – vehicle identification number number