# Is "previous predecessor" grammatically incorrect? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 23, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406 "2015-02-23T12:07:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/1 "2015-02-23T12:07:50Z")
It seems like I’m always hearing these two words paired together. To me, it sounds redundant. I liken it to “ATM machine.” ---
**Author:** ![saje](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saje/32/3631_2.png) [@saje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saje)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/2 "2015-02-23T12:12:27Z")
Previous & ??? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/3 "2015-02-23T12:28:31Z")
Yeah, what two words? The only word you gave was “previous.” ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/4 "2015-02-23T12:34:51Z")
The word before that. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/5 "2015-02-23T12:43:05Z")
Dammit!! The title is meant to read: “Previous predecessor”. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![kaltkalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bb73d2/32.png) [@kaltkalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaltkalt)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/6 "2015-02-23T12:46:08Z")
I’ve never heard “previous predecessor” but it does sound redundant to me. ---
**Author:** ![sandra\_nz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@sandra\_nz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sandra_nz)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/7 "2015-02-23T12:51:03Z")
Is it intended to mean the pre-predecessor? ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/8 "2015-02-23T12:54:30Z")
> [@kaltkalt](#): > > I’ve never heard “previous predecessor” but it does sound redundant to me. Me too - never read or heard that anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/9 "2015-02-23T13:25:21Z")
Grover Cleveland served as President of the United States from 1885 to 1889 and again from 1893 to 1897. His most recent predecessor was Benjamin Harrison, but his previous predecessor was Chester Arthur. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/10 "2015-02-23T13:28:07Z")
It’s grammatically fine. Whether it actually passes on the intended meaning is a different question (personally, I would read it as ‘predecessor’s predecessor’ - Clinton relative to Obama for an immediately graspable example - though I have no idea if that’s what it’s intended to mean), but the _grammar_ is fine. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/11 "2015-02-23T13:35:29Z")
I put “previous predecessor” (with the quotes) into google and I got a lot of hits. A few of them are of the form “previous (predecessor)” but most of them seem to imply the predecessor of the predecessor: the most recent one being the “immediate predecessor” but the one before that being the “previous predecessor.” Yes, this is different than the example I gave above. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/12 "2015-02-23T14:14:25Z")
**Moderator Note** > [@Shakes](#): > > Dammit!! The title is meant to read: “Previous predecessor”. > :smack: Fixed. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/13 "2015-02-23T15:44:22Z")
It is correct because there may be more than one predecessor. The one immediately anterior to oneself would be the most obvious person referred to. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/14 "2015-02-23T15:59:14Z")
To double nitpick the OP: The question is one of usage, not grammar. As Kamino Neko said, it’s grammatically fine but it’s an odd usage that makes readers trip over it. Their first thought would indeed be that it’s redundant - all predecessors are previous. A modifier that gives more useful information is called for. And ATM machine is formally redundant but perfectly OK as usage. Once an acronym becomes so ingrained in speech that the original meaning of the individual words are lost it is normal and correct usage to have it modify the last word. ATM machine is correct. What you don’t hear is ATM device or ATM contraption or even ATM mechanism even though that shares the initial. Similarly you always hear OPEC country, not OPEC nation. That is the example of grammar in the OP. Grammar formally describes the natural underlying rules of speech by native speakers. Redundancy is grammatical because native speakers use it regularly and consistently to emphasize a point. Redundancy applied to acronyms is also consistently and spontaneously applied so it too is grammatical in the most basic sense. Whether purists would approve the usage in the most formal of situations is a totally different issue. They should - run like hell from any situation in which they wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/15 "2015-02-23T16:18:11Z")
Unlike “ATM machine,” “OPEC country” is not redundant. Nor is “US state.” ---
**Author:** ![california\_jobcase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9d8465/32.png) [@california\_jobcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/california_jobcase)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/16 "2015-02-23T16:24:41Z")
OK, can anyone defend preplanning? Isn’t all planning “pre-” by definition? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/17 "2015-02-23T17:07:59Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Unlike “ATM machine,” “OPEC country” is not redundant. Nor is “US state.” It’s the same word, just in singular and plural forms. Usage considers that a non-difference. > [@california\_jobcase](#): > > OK, can anyone defend preplanning? Isn’t all planning “pre-” by definition? Another example of emphasis. The English language is littered with words that are emphasized variants of already existing words, but apparently the original words weren’t considered strong enough. Purists hate these, while accepting words formed in a similar way long enough ago that they didn’t see the process happening. ---
**Author:** ![california\_jobcase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9d8465/32.png) [@california\_jobcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/california_jobcase)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/18 "2015-02-23T18:04:31Z")
Strange how English teachers will accept certain redundant terms, but rail against a double negative. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/19 "2015-02-23T18:56:49Z")
> [@california\_jobcase](#): > > Strange how English teachers will accept certain redundant terms, but rail against a double negative. Redunancy doesn’t run the risk of changing the meaning. While double negatives are generally used for emphasis, they technically reverse the meaning. “I don’t have no bananas” could mean “I have bananas” (e.g. “I’m not sure how many bananas I have, but I know I don’t have no [i.e. zero] bananas.”). They are potentially ambivalent or confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/20 "2015-02-23T19:06:59Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > While double negatives are generally used for emphasis, they technically reverse the meaning. And can be used deliberately for that reason. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406.md?page=2)