Talk:Zeugma

Syllepsis

It seems like zeugma and syllepsis are more or less the same thing. I think perhaps a merge is in order. --MatrixFrog 08:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

The following text was removed from this page by User:84.68.168.226 on 12 November 2005 and put back by User:Quuxplusone on 13 April 2006.

They're not the same thing. The difference is that in syllepsis, the verb in question governs both nouns but in different senses; in zeugma it appears to govern both but is only appropriate to one.

The example given of zeugma on the zeugma page, "She raised the blinds and my spirits", is really a syllepsis; a true example of zeugma is "to wage war and peace"; note that one cannot say "to wage peace".

See also Fowler's Modern English Usage, second edition, entries "syllepsis" and "zeugma". -- Frederick Fogarty, 21:25, 27 Oct 2004

Yes one can. It is an ironic usage. Your example isn't a zeugma at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelisi (talk • contribs)

---

I agree; they are similar, but I would say they are certainly not the same thing. I'm going to remove the MergeDispute from each of the pages; if anyone disagrees they are welcome to add them back. - localh77 18:59, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between them? I read both articles and could not figure it out. The fact that "You held your breath and the door for me." is given as an example in both articles didn't help. The demiurge 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If syllepsis is word A applying to words B and C in senses which are different but logical, and zeugma is word A applying to words B and C in senses in which one is logical and one is either (1) illogical or (2) different but logical (on which, as noted, dictionaries differ), then syllepsis is a subset of zeugma--that is, syllepsis is zeugma (2). In this case, zeugma (2) is clever and zeugma (1) is typically an error. I don't recommend a merge, but I recommend redefining the relationship as such in each article.

Note that there are no examples of zeugma (1) in the zeugma article. --Darksasami 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I think that this article is no longer a stub, are there any objections to me removing the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ozone- (talk • contribs)

Does this old Groucho Marx joke qualify? "one morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargletheape (talk • contribs)

No. No word in that joke refers to two different objects in different ways; the ambiguity is simply over the antecedent of "in my pajamas." (Was Groucho in them, or was the elephant in them?) You might argue with slightly more success that another Groucho joke uses syllepsis: "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." The ambiguity here is over the meaning of "outside," but it only refers to one object — "a dog." So, as I understand it, that's not syllepsis either. But I don't really understand it. :) --Quuxplusone 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is one Groucho Marx joke which is often quoted as an example of a zeugma:

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana" It would definately be an example of syllepsis if you'd omit the second "flies", but that, of course, would ruin the joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.91.246.21 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Zeugma versus syllepsis

I have been mulling over this great zeugma/syllepsis debate with great interest and a colleague. One thing seems clear: it is all far from clear. I think the most useful thing would be if I could quote the full entries for both words from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms defines a syllepsis as follows:

syllepsis, a construction in which one word (usually a verb or preposition) is applied to two other words or phrases, either ungrammatically or in two differing senses. In the first case, the verb or preposition agrees grammatically with only one of the two elements which it governs, e.g. “He works his work, I mine” (Tennyson). In the second case, the word also appears only once but is applied twice in differing senses (often an abstract sense and a concrete sense), as in Pope’s The Rape of the Lock:

"Here, thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey Dost sometimes counsel take – and sometimes tea."

A more far-fetched instance occurs in Dicken’s Pickwick Papers when it is said of a character that she '”Went home in a flood of tears and a sedan chair'”. There is usually a kind of pun involved in this kind of syllepsis. The term is frequently used interchangeably with zeugma, attempts to distinguish the two terms having foundered in confusion: some rhetoricians place the ungrammatical form under the heading of syllepsis while others allot it to zeugma. It seems preferable to keep zeugma as the more inclusive term for syntactic “yoking” and to reserve syllepsis for its ungrammatical or punning varieties.”

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms defines a zeugma as follows:

zeugma – a figure of speech by which one word refers to two others in the same sentence. Literally a “yoking”, zeugma may be achieved by a verb or preposition with two objects, as in the final line of Shakespeare’s 128th sonnet:

"Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss." Or it may employ a verb with two subjects, as in the opening of his 55th sonnet:

"Not marble nor the gilded monuments Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme."

However, the term is frequently used as a synonym for ‘syllepsis’ – a special kind of zeugma in which the yoking term agrees grammatically with only one of the terms to which it is applied, or refers to each in a different sense. In the confusion surrounding these two terms, some rhetoricians have reserved ‘zeugma’ for the ungrammatical sense of syllepsis.”

End of quotation from the dictionary.

So there you have it. There is much confusion, but it seems that a zeugma yokes. If the yoking is ungrammatical it is a syllepsis, and if the verb is used in two different senses (usually a literal and a figurative sense) you can take your pick which you call it. So, looking at the wiki article Zeugma it is more or less correct, but the two examples of semantic zeugma could also be called a syllepsis if preferred. The penultimate word of the article “incongruous” could be replaced by “ungrammatical” (or “ungrammatical” added to it).

Looking at the article Syllepsis most of that stands, too. I don’t like the first sentence: I’m not quite sure I even understand it. It would be clearer to put: Syllepsis is a figure of speech in which one word simultaneously modifies two or more other words but in different senses”. And the third sentence (“Syllepsis is somewhat related……) would have to be replaced.

I seriously think the entry Syllepsis should be merged with Zeugma.

Hikitsurisan 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. They're not the same thing, because not every zeugma is a syllepsis, but it's much better to discuss them in the same article and avoid needless redundancy. —Keenan Pepper 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another Flanders and Swann fan. "Madeira, M'Dear" has been quoted and cited. But I note the quote above without citation, "Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin." Actually, I think it was "Are you ALL sitting comfortably?" And the whole was followed by, "Fifteen forty-six, if you'll cast your minds back ..." It's the opening of Micheal Flanders's historico-comic monologue on how "Greensleeves" came to be written. Or, as the purists might insist, "Greenfleeves."

140.147.160.78 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

More from Flanders and Swann, "Madeira M'Dear"

I'm delighted to see included the line from Flanders and Swann, "Madeira M'Dear"--"He said, as he hastened to put out the cat, the wine, his cigar and the lamps..." as an example of syllepsis.

That song has several more terrific examples. "She lowered her standards by raising her glass, her courage, her eyes, and his hopes."

But the most deliciously tortured example I've ever seen anywhere comes from the same song. "When he asked, 'What in Heaven,; she made no reply, up her mind, and a dash for the door!" I really had to sit and work that one out.

140.147.160.78 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Repeated verb

Several of the examples provided employ a common verb, but that verb is repeated in each clause. (eg ' We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.' or 'She blew my nose and then she blew my mind'. Can someone clarify if this is genuine zeugma, or if zeugma requires a single use of the verb or noun? Spamburgler (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To address my own question, a nice resource for this at The Forest of Rhetoric site at Brigham Young University http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/syllepsis.htm appears to clarify (at least concerning syllepsis) "Syllepsis is a form of ellipsis, and like ellipsis the sense of the word is repeated, but not the word itself". Thus Syllepsis does not apply when the common verb or common noun is repeated. I propose removing the examples provided on this page that are not in line with this principle.Spamburgler (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

classification example

In his track "Public Service Announcement," Jay-Z raps that he is "flyer than a piece of paper bearing [his] name." In the lyric, "flyer" is to be understood both as a comparative, meaning "more fly" ('fly' being a common hip-hop term for 'hot' (Mims 2007)), and as a noun, meaning "an advertisement printed on paper." While the noun usage does not complete a grammatical sentence, this meaning is clearly suggested by the second half of the line. Would this be considered syllepsis, or is there a more accurate term? 128.12.39.153 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just poetic licence, in my, non-expert, opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of prozeugma in chiasmus?

I am new to this concept so please forgive my ignorance, but could somebody explain to me how the example of a prozeugma within a chiasmus in the hypozeugma section fits the definition of a prozeugma in the prozeugma section? The prozeugma section states that a verb in the first part of a sentence governs more than one clause later in the sentence. In the example of a chiasmus - 'The foundation of freedom and the fountain of equity is preserved by laws. Our lawless acts destroy our wealth and threaten our custody of life', the second sentence is supposed to be a prozeugma, but there is no single verb governing the the two clauses in the later part of the sentence. Rather, there is a noun 'acts' tied to two clauses with their own verbs - 'destroy' and 'threaten'. It seems to fit the definition of the diazeugma disjunction rather than the prozeugma. Is there an inconsistency here, or am I failing to understand the concept? Melaena (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hammond and Hughes

Paul Hammond and Patrick Hughes have a short treatise on puns which features various examples of Zeugma and its relatives (as well as, of course, a somewhat limited analysis):

http://www.patrickhughes.co.uk/papers/upon_the_pun.pdf

Here is the referring page:

http://www.patrickhughes.co.uk/books.htm

Examples include Saki's witticism, "She was a good cook as cooks go; and as cooks go, she went."

Perhaps someone more familiar with procedure and the topic at-hand can make use of this out-of-print resource.

206.248.138.250 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Question - prozeugma/mesozeugma

I don't understand why this example is classed as mesozeugma not prozeugma, because the verb is in the first part of the sentence. Can anyone explain?

"Both determination and virtue will prevail; both dedication and honor, diligence and commitment."

Crana (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The grammar of the sentence is Subject, verb, subject, subject. The definition of a mesozeugma is "where a verb in the middle of the sentence governs several parallel clauses on either side." "Will prevail," the verb, takes "both determination and virtue" as its subject, as well as "dedication and honor" and "diligence and commitment." Hypozeugma comes with "Both determination and virtue, dedication and honor, diligence and commitment will prevail." I suppose the prozeugma would be "Will prevail: both determination and virtue, dedication and honor, diligence and commitment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.55.47 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mesozeugma typo

"several parallel clauses that it precedes." - can someone confirm then change this to "that precede it". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rage707 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Coulrophobia

• The parents scowled, the girls cried, and the boys jeered while the clown stood confused.

This is both not a great example and on the wrong side of the coulrophobes. Let's stick with famous quotes. There are enough that we don't need to resort to sorts of strange sentences. 75.147.59.54 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreement error

In the section on grammatical disagreement, we have: "Here, neither "loud" nor "shook" agree with "lightning", a purely visual effect." This is not a grammatical disagreement -- gramatically, "loud" is a singular adjective that agrees perfectly well with a singular noun. The issue here is semantic agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.48.42 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you diagrammed the sentence you would see your first impression of it is incorrect. Loud does not necessarily modify lightning. It may "agree" with lighting in number, but as you may recall from your Ancient Greek and Latin courses that the more fully inflected languages have other descriptors for nouns and adjectives such as declension, number, gender, case, and function. In Latin, it is easier to understand the grammatical structure of a sentence because the adjectives will agree with the nouns they modify in declension (1st and 2nd), number, gender, and case. (e.g. bestiae ferae, "wild beasts" the adjective ferae is feminine, 1st declension, singular, nominative, and modifies the noun "bestiae"). Similarly, in the example sentence, the adjective "loud" is singular, nominative (part of the subject clause), and modifies thunder. It does not modify lightning so it does not "agree" with it simply and only because it has the same number. In the sentence, "Bob and Sue entered the wilderness, but the boyish forgot the canteen" does the adjective "boyish" agree with "Sue"? It is singular, but it has a gender. The gender would not agree with Sue, but this could be a reversal of rolls; therefore, "boyish" could modify either Bob or Sue and the grammar is ambiguous. Such is the consequence of a less fully inflected language. In the loud lightning sentence, loud could either modify lightning with its meaning understood as "bright", or loud modifies thunder and the adjective "bright" is understood although it is omitted in the form of a zeugma. So the question is whether the sentence employs a trope or a scheme[1]. A scheme in the form of a zeugma or a trope in the form of a catachresis[2]. This is why the grammar is ambiguous and this is why your first impression of the sentence is incorrect. You may feel a bit more comfortable editing articles on rhetoric if you were to study Quintilian, Cicero, and Henry Peacham a bit more. We would benefit if you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.153.200 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several errors in the paragraph above:

1) Diagramming the sentence does not necessarily change the first impression of it. The sentence can easily be diagrammed with loud modifying lightning, thus reinforcing the first impression.

2) Whether loud modifies lightning is irrelevant to the question whether it grammatically agrees with it. It does grammatically agree with it, and the original comment by 94.194.48.42 above is correct.

3) Latin has at least five declensions of nouns, not just the 1st and 2nd declensions.

4) Bestiae ferae might be a plural nominative, a singular genitive, an singular dative, or even a plural vocative, but not a singular nominative.

5) The adjective boyish does not have gender. Grammatically, the sentences He is boyish and She is boyish are equally correct.

6) The word rolls in this context should be spelled roles.

7) In the sentence about Bob and Sue, boyish “modifies” neither Bob nor Sue. It can’t, because it is in a completely different clause. It can “refer” to either Bob or Sue. It might also refer to an unnamed third party.

8) It is fairly common, and perfectly proper, to refer to something visually startling as loud. Such use does not qualify as improper application (or catachresis).

Bottom line: The phrase loud lightning and thunder might mean (among other things) loud lightning and thunder or loud lightning and loud thunder, so the grammar is indeed ambiguous, but not because loud disagrees grammatically with lightning. It doesn’t disagree.

Side note: In the article, this is the only example of “ambiguous” grammar that actually is ambiguous, but its ambiguity is not obvious, so it is not a very good example. A better example would be green eggs and ham. Is the ham green, or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.92.117 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another error in the above: Latin does not require nouns and their adjectives to agree in declension.70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change the name of the heading, and remove the "lightning and thunder" example. 70.179.92.117 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced example?

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the example “Mr. Jones took his coat and his leave” not closer to the examples given under Syllepsis as opposed to those given under Prozeugma?

I consider especially the fact that (physically) taking a coat contrasts with the idiomatic "took [...] his leave", which is paralleled (strongly, I feel) by the later examples of syllepsis with idiomatic examples. -C.Logan (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nouns? Prepositions?

The definition of zeugma, quoted above from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, says, "zeugma – a figure of speech by which one word refers to two others in the same sentence . . . [Z]eugma may be achieved by a verb or preposition with two objects . . . "

So according to this definition, there have to be two nouns (objects) yoked by either a verb or a preposition. But the lede to this article says the yoking word is either a noun (yoking two verbs) or a verb (yoking two objects). The lede does not allow for prepositions, and Oxford doesn't allow for nouns. Who is right? 70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

More than compounds?

I notice that most of the zeugmas cited in the article would be classified as ordinary "compounds" (at least what we called them when I went to grammar school).

Such as, compound subject: Dick and Jane run; compound verb: Jane hops and skips; compound direct object: Dick eats apples and oranges; compound indirect object: Spot brings Dick and Jane a stick; compound object of preposition: Dick plays in the house and the yard.

However, some zeugmas transcend the "ordinary," such as the first example in the article:

"Lust conquered shame, audacity fear, madness reason."

Here we sort of have three separate sentences, each with the (implied, except in the first case) verb "conquered." Is there a special name for this kind of construction, which transcends the ordinary use of compounds?

And getting back to Dick and Jane: Is there any minimum "literary" standard that a sentence must reach to qualify as a zeugma? Does something as simple as "Dick and Jane run" really qualify?70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

possibly erroneous example

"You held your breath and the door for me." To hold (stop) one's breath is the same as holding a door (stopping it from closing). This is actually an example of zeugma. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Idioms?

The syllepsis section contains this statement:

Syllepsis can be used with idiomatic phrases to achieve a similar result:

But following the colon there are several examples that do not employ idioms. Does anyone have an example of syllepsis that does use an idiom? If someone quits smoking but dies of cancer anyway, we might say, "He kicked the habit, and the bucket." 70.179.92.117 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reddit "vandalism"

I see the page has been protected due to supposed "persistent vandalism" from "reddit trolls".

The offending edit is the addition of an amusing and colorful (yet appropriate) example of a Syllepsis, "Hilda clutched at the bedsheets with lust and ecstasy and her hands," authored by a reddit user on one of their pages.

While perhaps not on the level of such literary greats as Eve 6, Digital Underground, or Anderson Cooper, I'd like to remind fellow Wikipedia users that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" is explicitly defined as not vandalism by the Wikipedia guidelines. This edit appears to clearly fall into the 'good-faith effort to improve' category. The edit was reverted, then added again, then reverted, then added again... which can be annoying to both parties. But I'd like to also remind fellow Wikipedia users that "edit warring over content" is also specifically defined as not vandalism by the same Wikipedia guidelines.

Using these Wikipedia guidelines as a guide (which seems like an obvious thing to do), it seems there has been no "persistent vandalism" and that the protecting of the page is inappropriate.

--Fishbert (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit is vandalism: crude humor, by some reddit users attempting to make a joke by adding an extract from a porn story to the page. It is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it's clearly being added by them because they think it's funny, not because they think it is beneficial to the page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The example may have come from "a porn story", but that does not mean the G-rated example itself is poor or unfit for the page (else, I hope there are no lines taken from Lolita on any Wikipedia pages). Funny examples are also often the best examples, and should not be excluded for humorous content alone; I'm pretty sure that's why the examples from So I Married An Axe Murderer and from Groucho Marx are on the page. As for "crude humor", it's no more crude than the Bob Kanefsky example about turning down a man's advances and the lack of power to resist him or the 2001 Lyttle Lytton Contest example about an exploding woman and bits of her pancreas.

--Fishbert (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So it's more important to allow this page to become the joke of a bunch of horny teenagers than to keep Wikipedia a serious and professional encyclopedia? Most of your argument consists of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The example is not a good one for this page, it is taken from an internet forum, from an unprofessional piece of text, and added at the whim of a group of people who think they're being funny, and do not actually care about if this is good for Wikipedia or not. It's a poor example for the page, certainly not "the best example," besides which there are many examples listed already - more than enough in fact. However, I really do not have the energy to argue over it further. So, if you can get consensus for it, then re-add it, until you do so it is not going to be there. That is all I have to say here, your next stop should be Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a fairly clear bias in this issue, concerned more with attacking the individual making an edit ("a bunch of horny teenagers" -- I'd be interested to hear any evidence you have to support this label on anyone who made a recent edit to the article) than the actual content of the edit that was made.

Merely pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not sufficient reason to discount the argument. I'd refer to the 2nd paragraph of that guideline: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'"

That the example provided in the edit may not be necessary for the article (for any of the reasons you only just now mention) is perfectly valid criticism of the content of the edit, and worthy of an open discussion (which I attempted to start) on this article discussion page; perhaps you should have opened with that to begin with instead of just protecting the page and calling people making a reasonable edit that you disagreed with trolls and vandals. And since it appears we're all about telling people where to go now (not condescending at all, I'm sure), your next stop should be either Wikipedia:Avoid_the_word_"vandal" or Wikipedia:Make_protection_requests_sparingly (or both?).

--Fishbert (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Syllepsis with grammatical disagreement

The examples given are simply poor grammar, disagreement in number which could be simply avoided either sylleptically "X .. and y .. are falling" or non sylleptically "X is .. and the Y are ... falling". I can conceive that other disagreements might be used to dramatic effect, and if this is significantly citable as something that passes for effective writing in some part of the English speaking world, then I suppose we should include it. Otherwise it should go.

The second list of examples should also go, we have plenty in the main sylleptic section. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

In rhetoric, a grammatical error which serves no purpose is called a vice. When it serves a purpose it is called a solecism and not an error afterall. Quintillian gave a discourse about this about 2000 years ago and we have had examples of intentional "bad grammar" throughout western litterature. If you do a search for the term "solecisim" in Quintillian's work[3] you will find some Latin examples. Quintillian restricts the term solecism to refer to disagreements of number and gender only. Quintillian was hesitant to declare that Vergil was incorrect for using improper gender in his sentences in the Aeneid. In the sentence, "The sky--and my hopes--is falling," the phrase "the sky is falling" is retained. This is a common idiom in English, the error is intentional, and the syllepsis employs a scheme of grammar to this effect. Shakespeare was fond of the solecism as in "Yes, you have seen Cassio and she together," Othello, Act IV scene ii. Othello, soon to take her life, is characterizing Desdemonda in the subject case. "Her" should be used but promoting her to a subject rather than a mere object in the sentence creates greater emphasis on "she." To answer your question, "poor grammar" passes as effective writing in the English language. We do not fault Shakespeare for his "poor grammar," but you might disagree. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)