Es ésto una redundancia?

Question

No puedo lograr traducir ésta oración, me parece una redundancia. Alguien puede guiarme por favor? Gracias.

"Their leader, Sequoyah, created a written Cherokee script for writing. "

Answer 1

"Their leader, Sequoyah, created a written Cherokee script for writing. "

More precisely, "He created a collection of symbols for transcribing the syllables of spoken Cherokee." Minimal correction: ""Their leader, Sequoyah, created a (written) Cherokee script for transcribing/recording (their language)." In normal usage a script is, necessarily, written thus the use of "written" is redundant. The use of "writing" (assuming that it is shorthand for "transcribing their language") is more defensible. One might say "a script for their language" which would convey the same general meaning but "for writing/transcribing/recording" their language" hardly unusual.

Gracias por tan excelente explicación. Siempre aprendo de ti. - gone, Jan 27, 2011

Answer 2

I'd say:

Su jefe, Secuoya, inventó un sistema de signos gráficos para escribir en lengua chéroqui.

Or

Su jefe, Secuoya, inventó un sistema de escritura para la lengua chéroqui.

Or

Su jefe, Secuoya, inventó un silabario para escribir en chéroqui.

Answer 3

Are you trying to say that Sequoyah created a Cherokee alphabet? ¿Quieres decir que Seqouyah creó el alfabeto de Los Cherokee?

Syllabary not alphabet (as Lorenzo pointed out). - samdie, Jan 27, 2011

Answer 4

He invented a written language, but it was a syllabary rather than an alphabet.

Yes, the original sentence is redundant.

Answer 5

It sounds double-redundant to me. Where does this sentence come from?

I would have written, "... created a Cherokee script." If the part "for writing" explains the purpose of the script, I would include that part too. Does the script explain how to write in Cherokee?

viene de un texto "Indians: the American natives" - jortosar, Jan 27, 2011