Q I’m confused about the word “hearsay.” Isn’t “hearsay” just evidence that is not allowed in court? – S.W., New Britain, Conn.

A: “Hearsay” is used in general to mean simply “rumor,” but in a court and in legal contexts it has a very specific meaning.

Hearsay is a statement made by a person who is not under oath that is offered in court as evidence that what the statement asserts is true. The problem with such a statement is that it is not considered legally trustworthy. If it had been made under oath, it would be trustworthy because, theoretically at least, a person under oath must tell the truth.

Because of its untrustworthiness, a hearsay statement is generally not admissible in court as evidence that the statement is true. There are numerous exceptions to this general rule, however.

For example, a statement such as “Look out! He’s got a gun!” made spontaneously during a startling event would probably be admissible as a so-called “excited utterance.” The theory is that the statement, though not made under oath, is inherently trustworthy because the possibility of fabrication is slight.

Hearsay statements may be admitted for purposes other than as proof that what the statement asserts is true. For example, if a witness has made contradictory statements, they may be offered as evidence that the witness cannot be believed.

“Hearsay” was first recorded in 1532. The term “hearsay evidence” dates from 1753.

Q A news report last night said that someone “burgled” a house; are my local newspeople getting silly on me? – A.H., Los Angeles, Calif.

A: “Burgle” is a real word; it has been in use in English for quite some time now (it is considerably older than both your news anchors, as a matter of fact). However, “burglary,” which means “forcible entry into a building especially at night with the intent to commit a crime (as theft),” and “burglar” (“one who commits burglary”) have been around much longer, since at least the 16th century.

“Burgle” and its synonym “burglarize” didn’t break into the language until the 19th century, arriving almost simultaneously (believe it or not, “burgle” was slightly earlier, as it first appeared in print in 1870, while “burglarize” first turned up in 1871). “Burgle” is a back-formation (that is, a word formed when people remove a presumed suffix or prefix from a longer word) from “burglar.” “Burglarize” comes from “burglar” as well, with addition of the familiar “-ize” ending. Both verbs were once disparaged by grammarians, as “burgle” was considered to be “facetious” and “burglarize” was labeled “colloquial,” but they are now generally accepted.

“Burglarize” is slightly more common in American English, whereas “burgle” seems to be preferred in British English.

QSuch phrases as “still remember,” “still recall,” “still retain,” etc., are redundant. Memory by its nature is something saved and not “re-saved.” So the word “still” in no way enriches or quantifies these words. Please comment.

A: Let’s look at the question from another angle. Have you ever felt when you were talking to someone that you were not being listened to, or that your message was being misunderstood? We’ve probably all had that experience. It can compare to transmitting a message over a noisy channel – the noise in this case being whatever is in the mind of the listener that distracts attention from what we are saying.

Our language has built-in mechanisms for helping the spoken message penetrate the noise. For instance, in the phrase “these four chairs,” plurality is marked three times. This can be thought of as useful redundancy; it helps the message get across by facilitating the reception of the idea the speaker is trying to communicate.

Repetition can be one kind of useful redundancy. By repeating an idea, the speaker can be sure that the hearer does not miss it. But a price is paid for the use of repetition: loss of transmission speed. If everything were repeated, transmission speed would slow down to almost nothing. The whole question comes down to the fine line between useful redundancy and wordy redundancy.Another consideration is whether the longer version may simply sound better or be more idiomatic than the shorter alternatives.

You’re right that “remember” carries a connotation of continuance that “still” also shares. But it seems to us that the shared element, or redundancy if you will, is a useful one – or if not positively useful, at least harmless. The repetition helps reinforce the idea in the hearer’s mind. Another point worth making is that the notion of “still,” implying continuance over an extended period of time, is not necessarily prominent or even present in “remember” or its like. For example, you might remember what you had for breakfast, but if it’s lunchtime now, you’re not likely to say “I still remember what I had for breakfast.” “Still” does contribute additional meaning.

This column was prepared by the editors of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.

Copy the Story Link