On 11/20/2013 11:06 AM, Peter Percival wrote: > James Waldby wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:28:17 +0000, Peter Percival wrote: >>> William Elliot wrote: >>>> How can it be stronger? They're both equivalent. >>> >>> I know even less about English than I know about maths, but it seems to >>> me that >> >>> They're both equivalent. >> >>> is ungrammatical. I think it should be >> >>> They're equivalent to each other. >> >>> or >> >>> They're both equivalent to <some third thing>. >> >> No, "They're both equivalent" isn't ungrammatical. Some may see it as >> slightly awkward or pleonastic but I think most native speakers will, >> without remark, take it as meaning "They're equivalent" (which is what >> I'd >> have written if it were so). In appropriate context, "They're >> equivalent" >> has the same meaning but is less verbose than "They're equivalent to each >> other". > > I'm happy with 'they're equivalent'; it's 'they're *both* equivalent' > that reads oddly to me. (But I may be mad.) >
What would grammarians call such a structure? A dangling relatum?