0

I want to write:

X necessarily has to contain a lie.

Am I in the wrong?

  1. Should I drop the "has to", since "necessarily" already bears that meaning? I.e. should it be like this instead:

    X necessarily contains a lie.

  2. Or the contrary; perhaps the "has to" part is obligatory?
  3. Finally, maybe it's just a matter of preference?

In my own language, these kind of semantic repetitions are shunned. So I kind of want to go for the #1. Then, I have a sense of English that tells me to use #2.

If it is #3, then I'm also open for recommendations and personal preferences. Please, do note that it is your personal preference in that case.

  • “Has to” is not obligatory. You’re fine , and maybe more accurate, to drop it. – whiskeychief Sep 8 '19 at 3:38
0

As far as I can see, "necessarily" and "has to" say the same thing, so you do not need both. Having both is an example of (grammatical) tautology: this does not make it ungrammatical, but some people prefer to avoid it.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.