Talk:Zeugma and 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)

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)