Past History: Is It Redundant?
Quick Answer
Yes, "past history" is redundant.
History is already about the past. Just say "history."
Why Is It Redundant?
History = the study or record of past events
By its very definition, history only deals with the past. Adding "past" doesn't add any new information-it just repeats what's already contained in the word "history."
Think about it: Can you have "future history"? No! If it hasn't happened yet, it's not history.
Examples
✘The patient has a past history of heart problems.
✔The patient has a history of heart problems.
✘We must learn from our past history.
✔We must learn from our history.
✘The company's past history includes several mergers.
✔The company's history includes several mergers.
✘Based on past history, we can predict...
✔Based on history, we can predict...
Common Contexts
"Past history" is often heard in:
- • Medical contexts: "family history" (not "past family history")
- • Background checks: "criminal history" (not "past criminal history")
- • Academic discussions: "the history of..." (not "the past history of...")
In all cases, "history" alone is correct and more concise.
Similar Redundancies
- • past experience → experience
- • past memories → memories
- • past record → record
- • previous history → history
Practice
Fix this sentence:
"Based on his past history of tardiness, we need to monitor his attendance."