Talk:Enallage

shouldn't the first line read in part 'substitution of one grammatical form (possibly incorrect) for another? It's the NEW form that's possibly incorrect, right? Ken M Quirici 15:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare asks, “‘Is there not wars? Is there not employment?’” (2nd Henry IV, I, ii) to achieve parallel structure. Ordinarily this would read "Is there not war? Is there not employment?" but Shakespeare pluralizes war.

This analysis makes no sense. If the line is meant to "achieve parallel structure" then the point is that it reads "Is" rather than "are." But if that is the case, it does not explain why "wars" is not "war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Enallage and solecism seem to be the same thing.--Spannerjam 09:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Enallage seems to be distinct in that in can be used with conscious intent where solecism seems to be simply an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataraxis7 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have also come to this conclusion. It would be good if an expert could confirm if this is true. --Spannerjam 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this difference, and think they should not be merged. Credentials: MA Linguistics. Richlitt (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Enallage of Voice"

I'm removing the section "Enallage of Voice".

The section is based off a misunderstanding off a misunderstanding off a Latinate interpretation of the term. Let me know if one wishes to consult links to the source's sources.

1. Misunderstanding one. The source (Silva Rhetoreticae) never explicitly says "Enallage of Voice", but the wikipedia page inferrs it to be so based on the original example given by the source.
2. Misunderstanding two. The source in turn cites three sources: Quintilian, Peacham, and Puttenham. Of these three, none of them discuss an enallage of voice. Interestingly, Puttenham's examples are what we would call here hypallages instead. Quintilian doesn't call his trope a enallage; though one is, while the other is slightly different but may still be considered it: instead of substituting a word of different inflection, it uses one of different derivation. "Gilded roof" to refer to a fully golden roof. Peacham seems to be the primary source that Silva Rhetoreticae gets its concepts from.
3. Peacham discusses enallages but stubbornly adheres to a Latinate model, failing to translate the concept to an English grammatical context. That is, whereas in Latin they would be enallages in using a "wrong" inflection or derivation of a word for their semantic role, Peacham generalizes this to "wrong" circumlocutions as long as those circumlocutions corresponded to the translation of a Latinate word. In any case, he never mentions an enallage of voice, only one of (Latinate-modelled) mood.

Jhanschoo (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Johnny Myers example

I can't find a source both for this analysis, as well as for Myers having uttered this, or of Johnny Myers himself, beyond maybe a mention in Jimmy Hayes. In any case, I'm removing this example because it's more accurately an example of using an AAVE idiomatic term rather than enallage in AmE. Jhanschoo (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the other English examples are also just dialect ("we was robbed" / "is there not wars?" ) 2A01:C22:A41C:3800:1C78:F2B7:D2CE:71EE (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Analogy! of enallage

Byron's use of 'broke' makes sense because what follows is 'in'. There is no "should have used..." this, that OR the other. I am beginning to think you enallage comes from too much analogy. What Shakespeare probably meant by 'wars'.

Stjohn1970 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)