Is "previous predecessor" grammatically incorrect?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@JimSC

If the word “country” is redundant, as you claim, then its inclusion is unnecessary, its omission does not change the meaning of the phrase, and the two questions are interchangeable. Therefore, the word cannot be redundant unless the two questions are interchangeable, which they are not.

There’s your misunderstanding. Pedants call this usage redundant. I’m saying that it’s not in fact redundant because the acronym has become a separate term. However, usage creates a form that repeats the last word of the original, causing people who don’t understand how language works to consider it redundant and therefore “wrong” or “inferior” English.

[Senegoid]

I can see a debate about whether a phrase like “the OPEC countries” is redundant.

But “an OPEC country” or a particular one like “Venezuela, an OPEC country, …” isn’t redundant nor anything else wrong or weird about it. Just like “a U.S. state”, meaning “a United States state”.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Exapno_Mapcase

There’s your misunderstanding. Pedants call this usage redundant. I’m saying that it’s not in fact redundant because the acronym has become a separate term.

The point is that country in “OPEC country” is not redundant even to a pedant.

[JimSC]

@Exapno_Mapcase

There’s your misunderstanding. Pedants call this usage redundant. I’m saying that it’s not in fact redundant because the acronym has become a separate term. However, usage creates a form that repeats the last word of the original, causing people who don’t understand how language works to consider it redundant and therefore “wrong” or “inferior” English.

In at least four previous posts, you claimed that the phrase “OPEC country” is redundant. Now you say, “. . . it’s not in fact redundant . . .” and “. . . people who don’t understand how language works . . . consider it redundant.” Please explain how this is my misunderstanding.