We avoid redundancy to speed up communication, but some redundancies can greatly speed up communication by removing perceived ambiguities that stall comprehensi

We avoid redundancy to speed up communication, but some redundancies can greatly speed up communication by removing perceived ambiguities that stall comprehension. These are good. Avoiding redundancy isn't a goal in itself, and hasn't always been an explicit goal at all. Who would understand "V" standing by itself, instantly, without pausing? Nobody. (In fact, I'm still thinking about whether venture money - which could include self-issued digital coin? - is the same thing as Venture Capital.) In the middle ages, when literacy (and therefore large vocabularies) were uncommon, it was considered good form to include three redundant synonyms or phrases all in a row, creating emphasis, giving the reader the best chance of understanding the writer correctly, and demonstrating that the author understood his language well and probably meant what he was saying. (Not "she" so much, then.) It's now considered good form in technical writing to start with examples or present them as soon as possible, but examples are, by definition, semantically redundant. Should we axe them all? Absolutely not, since that would greatly slow, and sometimes prevent, comprehension.