YES. As you have written it, it is redundant. It is called a Pleonasm or Tautological redundancy.
2006-12-15 00:15:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by WISE OWL 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not necessarily. You could be allowed to take all your turns at once.
Let's say it's whoever gets the most bullseyes shooting darts. Each player gets 10 turns. It doesn't really matter if they take all 10 and then let the next player take their ten, or if they alternate taking their turns (one makes a shot, then the other makes a shot).
In some games, however, say chess, it would be inappropriate for one player to do all their turns. The first player would always win. So in chess you have to alternate taking turns. Not necessarily so in all games.
So, no, it's not redundant.
2006-12-15 00:07:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by T J 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not redundant, but nonsense.
"Players take turns" means that each player gets a go in turn.
"Players alternate taking turns" means there are only two players and that one of them gets all the turns until eventually they swap over.
2006-12-15 00:00:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes "alternate" in itself means one after the other, so taking turns might be redundant here
2006-12-15 04:01:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by fabee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
2 verbs after the other with same meaning,redundant...
2006-12-15 06:18:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by dra shelley 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
players alternating?
2006-12-17 09:11:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Alternate or take turns, don't use both.
2006-12-15 00:05:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by peekaboo 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is, as "alternate" and "taking turns" mean the same thing, don't they?
2006-12-14 23:58:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Maverick 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Without punctuation - redundant!
2006-12-14 23:57:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by jonti 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Depends on the rest of the sentence.
2006-12-15 02:27:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Nikkers 6
·
0⤊
0⤋