How does the following sound to you in terms of elegance of expression:
The winners and the losers of the war are interconnected to each other.
To me, “to each other” is very jarring here because of how superfluous it is. Doesn’t “interconnected” already mean “connected to each other”?
Or am I picking on this person unfairly?
You are right, this is clumsy and repetitive.
LikeLike
I think the ‘to’ throws it off, if you replace it with ‘with’
“the winners and the losers of the war are interconnected with each other”
it sounds better (not great, but not as awkward as it does now).
LikeLike
“Connected to each other” OR “interconnected.”
So you are absolutely correct. Fairness is another question entirely, in which context is all. Are you correcting a paper in your professorial role? Or picking on something someone said to you or in front of you? If just being picky, lay off — or the someone may lay you off.
LikeLike
I think it sounds terrible. The sentence should end after the word “interconnected.” Is this a published piece? Or is it something more informal–like an e-mail? If it’s informal, then a certain amount of clunkiness is understandable. If it’s published, eek. 😉
LikeLike
Definitely redundant. Interconnected == connected to one another.
LikeLike
If they are going to be clunky while pretending to be flowery (my diagnosis) they should write: “The winners and losers of the war are inextricably intertwined with one another.”
LikeLike
I like this.
used to suffer from world weariness, but the wall says that too was nothing. I cannot get away from you, though that’s the only thing I want from life, from the whole last ounce of the universe. You also want to get away, but like me, you can’t, and for the same reason. I am your wall, and you are my wall. And the game we tried during the war of mounting each other like dogs in severe heat has not yet been settled. ( p 46)
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment