They were equally as good as each other

English translation: Passable - but only just.

22:51 Aug 24, 2015
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Idioms / Maxims / Sayings / Normal everyday language
English term or phrase: They were equally as good as each other
We're talking about a simple game of soccer which ends scoreless. A reporter/journalist writes the above ("they" being the two football teams).

Is it good English? Proper, like? Decent newspaper standard? Is it wrong? Or just tautology? Or sth. else?

I'd be very interested in native-speaker views, esp. from UKI.

- They were equally good.
- One was as good as the other.

Would that IYO be a necessary correction or an example of hairsplitting?

No context as such, just sth. I read tonight and wondered about.
Cilian
Cilian O'Tuama
Germany
Local time: 00:33
Selected answer:Passable - but only just.
Explanation:
Is it good English? - No.
Proper, like? - No.
Decent newspaper standard? - Sad to say, it's par for the course.
Is it wrong? - Strictly speaking, yes; but, there again, what's 'right' in a constantly evolving multi-cultural language?
Or just tautology? - That, amongst other things.
Or sth. else? - Sloppy. Uneducated. A sign of the times ...
Selected response from:

Jennifer Levey
Chile
Local time: 20:33
Grading comment
I'm practically equally as wise as I was before I asked the Q. Many thanks to all.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
5 +8Passable - but only just.
Jennifer Levey
4 +3idiomatic and acceptable in informal writing, though widely condemned
Charles Davis
Summary of reference entries provided
Live quote?
Michele Johnson

  

Answers


46 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +8
they were equally as good as each other
Passable - but only just.


Explanation:
Is it good English? - No.
Proper, like? - No.
Decent newspaper standard? - Sad to say, it's par for the course.
Is it wrong? - Strictly speaking, yes; but, there again, what's 'right' in a constantly evolving multi-cultural language?
Or just tautology? - That, amongst other things.
Or sth. else? - Sloppy. Uneducated. A sign of the times ...

Jennifer Levey
Chile
Local time: 20:33
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
I'm practically equally as wise as I was before I asked the Q. Many thanks to all.
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks, that's useful input.


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Jack Doughty
6 hrs

agree  Jonathan MacKerron: nicely put
7 hrs

neutral  B D Finch: Agree with your explanation, but not with your liberal acceptance of this as "passable". OK in speech, but not in writing (and worse still by a journalist: spreading the acceptability of such sloppiness).
7 hrs

neutral  Yvonne Gallagher: with BDF and not "hairsplitting" to make the changes
8 hrs

agree  Simon Mac
8 hrs

agree  Mark Nathan: About normal for football speak
9 hrs

neutral  danya: with BD Finch, this cannot/should not be passable in writing
9 hrs

neutral  Alison MacG: Nice set of answers to Cilian’s questions. However, I agree with others that it is not passable and that correcting it is not hairsplitting. I think it arises from a confused combination of the phrases “equally good” and “just as good as”.
10 hrs

agree  acetran
1 day 10 hrs

agree  Charles Davis: "Passable but only just" is pretty close to my own view; I think the comments from some of your "neutralisers" go too far and I was really responding to them.
6 days

agree  phoenix11
9 days

agree  Phong Le
25 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day 2 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
they were equally as good as each other
idiomatic and acceptable in informal writing, though widely condemned


Explanation:
I am clearly swimming against the tide here, but honesty compels me to enter a dissenting view. There is a touch of devil's advocacy in what I'm going to say; I do find this usage somewhat infelicitous, but I find some of the comments here excessively censorious.

The censoriousness echoes Fowler, who thundered in 1926: "The use of equally as instead of either equally or as by itself is an illiterate tautology [...] These should be corrected by using equally alone where a comparison is not expressed within the sentence, and as alone where it is."

In his revision of Fowler's guide, R. W. Burchfield quotes this and comments that "the echoes of his condemnation rumble on".

Fowler was not the first to reject this usage on the grounds of redundancy. In his Vulgarisms & Other Errors of Speech (Philadelphia, 1869), Richard Meade Bache had commented:

"As good as means equally good; therefore, equally as good as means equally, equally good.
[...]
In the common phrase, "equally as good as,"—one can strike out both as's, or else strike out equally."
https://books.google.es/books?id=TQkSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137&dq="e...

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster's usage guide takes a much more indulgent view:

"Equally as is certainly not ‘illiterate,’ and its redundancy is more apparent than real. We would describe it as an idiomatic phrase that is equivalent to just as and that is widely regarded as redundant."

It adds, however, that "its reputation is bad enough to make it relatively rare in edited prose", and advises writers to avoid it, not so much because it is bad as because language commentators don't like it:

"This innocuous phrase has drawn more vehement criticism than is warranted, but you may well want to prefer just as in your writing or to use equally by itself for emphasis where your construction permits it."

Quoted (mostly) from: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/06/equally-as.html

Merriam-Webster is of course American, but the arguments on this usage are equally applicable to British (or Irish) English. I find these views sensible.

"Equally as ____ as" is a long-established usage which has been fairly common in written English since the eighteenth century at least. Here's one example, from Hansard in 1817:

"Surely then the sinking fund, which instead of bettering the condition of the country, left it equally as bad as when it found it, deserved no such name."
https://books.google.es/books?id=C_mE0bKjbigC&pg=PA28&dq="eq...

Modern examples are plentiful in quite respectable sources. Here's one from an article by the Health Editor of the Guardian in April this year:

"However, they established that mindfulness-based therapy is equally as good as drugs, which could offer a new option for those who do not want to be on medication for years."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/mindfulness-b...

And in academic writing, to take just one striking example, "equally as good as" is used no fewer than seventeen times in three pages in an essay by John Broome, Emeritus White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford University, in an essay entitled "Incommensurable Values", published by OUP in a Festschrift for James Griffin.
https://books.google.es/books?id=_Hy5Rng9L3QC&pg=PA26&dq="eq...

It would perhaps be worth considering why Broome chose this expression, to which he devotes very close attention, rather than just "as good as". I find it hard to believe that he was confused about what he was saying. His essay was read before publication by five other philosophers, whom he names, by the editors of the volume, and (presumably) by OUP's copy-editors. If the expression is "illiterate", this is rather alarming.

It is not clear to me that "the two teams were as good as each other" or "the two teams were equally good" are in fact exactly equivalent to what has been written (or perhaps said) here:

"The two teams were equally good" would normally be taken to mean that both teams were good, and to an equal degree, but that is not what the writer/speaker means: he/she is expressing equality of merit, not degree of merit. It may be that both teams were mediocre or bad, but equally so, and in that case "equally good" will not convey the desired meaning.

"The two teams were as good as each other" seems to say what is meant without redundancy, and therefore seems preferable, but it lacks an emphasis the speaker/writer desires to give: not just more or less as good as each other, but equally so. Despite what Meade Bache wrote in 1856, "as good as" does not, in practice, always express exact equality; it can express approximate equality.

I think this is why "just as good as each other" is generally regarded as acceptable and not tautologous. If we can use "just" here, why can't we use "equally"? People have been doing so for a long time and still do. I don't see why they shouldn't, and I don't see why we should necessarily follow language commentators in allowing cold logic to override all other linguistic considerations.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day16 mins (2015-08-25 23:08:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I've gone on far too long already, but what, pray, is the argument for saying that this is OK in speech, but not in writing? Michele has shown that this may in fact be speech anyway, but in any case, if it is wrong it is wrong. I don't think it is wrong; I think the worst you could say of it is that it is inelegant. And if something is idiomatic speech, and not actually ungrammatical, why shouldn't it be used in sports journalism?

Charles Davis
Spain
Local time: 00:33
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 8
Notes to answerer
Asker: More useful input. Thank you Charles.

Asker: Thanks again Charles. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this, more than my trivial Q merits. A lesson for all, self included. Thanks.


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Victoria Britten: Now that's what I call legwork! And an agreable and instructive read, as ever.
9 hrs
  -> Thanks very much for taking the trouble, Victoria :)

agree  Veronika McLaren
3 days 13 hrs
  -> Thank you very much, Veronika :)

agree  Jennifer Levey: Take an 'agree' on me. That said, I still think it's sloppy; at best, 'par for the course' in modern-day journalism, as we can see day in, day out, on the BBC News website...
5 days
  -> Thanks a lot, Robin; that's handsome of you. We're not far apart on this.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Reference comments


11 hrs
Reference: Live quote?

Reference information:
Hey C. I agree it's pretty bad, but if this is it: http://www.bbc.com/sport/live/football/33515251 it seems to be a quote from live commentary, which makes it more understandable?


Steve Claridge
BBC Radio 5 live at Emirates Stadium
"If Arsenal are expecting to take top four, then why shouldn't Liverpool? They were equally as good as each other.


    Reference: http://www.bbc.com/sport/live/football/33515251
Michele Johnson
Germany
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
Note to reference poster
Asker: You got me there, Michele :-)

Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search