This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see three nearly identical rhetorical devices:
Are these really the same? What are the subtle differences between them that we can bring out? I am linking the pages together in the see alsos and putting references to this talk page in hopes that one of us has more clue than me. Gary 18:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I tried to merge them together in a way that acknowledges the variety of meanings. Ashibaka tock 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm slightly puzzled as to what preterition has to do with apophasis; can someone explain what it's doing in there? Wooster (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
My original merge brought together a lot of related terms. Perhaps this article should be disambiguated into Paralipsis and Expeditio. Ashi b aka tock 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Apophasis from the greek roots is saying-away, literally to negate. Cataphasis from the greek roots is saying-with, literally to affirm.
It is very unlikely that "cataphasis ... is a rhetorical figure of speech wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked." This could be a meaning of apophasis. Apophasis and cataphasis are opposites, as seen in the Liddell-Scott Greek lexicon entry. I would guess that cataphasis should have its own page and not redirect here.
With regards to religion, apophasis is a statement about God by negation, by saying what He is not, used when speaking of the transcendence of God. Cataphasis is a positive statement about God, by saying what He is, used when speaking of the imminence of God.
Epte 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Praeteritio links here but there isn't a section on it, and while the device is proximal to these others it still differs in its use--especially historically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.176.4 ( talk) 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
One of the original points in this article, which I have (imprefectly) restored, was the fact that apophasis has fallen into disuse. Part of the reason for that is the failure to differentiate other related rhetorical devices. I think it was a mistake to merge these distinct if related terms. Having done so, however, it is important to discuss the relationships and the distinctions, which has not been done by those who advocated and made the merge. Edits since my last visit implicitly assert that aphophisis has no independent meaning other than as a superordinate for these other concepts. That's simply incorrect. It also has done harm to the understanding of the supposedly subordinate ideas. Economy1 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Occultatio section is lifted right from here: http://www.reference.com/search?q=Occultatio. Would anyone like to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.95.154 ( talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a section I deleted today. I removed it because it is not readily understandable, and the rest of the article seem to explain the subject "Apophasis" well enough on its own. --Spannerjam 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Apophasis ( Late Latin, from Greek ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι—apophemi, [1] "to say no" [2]) is defined as the rejection of several reasons why a thing should or should not be done and affirming a single one, considered most valid. [3] It refers, in general to when a contriver pretends to hide or leave out what he in fact is saying. [4] Apophasis covers a wide variety of figures of speech. According to William Franke, apophasis is essential because it lies at the root of [the Greeks'] common concern with elucidating how religion is vitally relevant to our self-understanding in a postmodern age. Religion is always deeply concerned with what cannot be adequately said, and any discourse that attempts to speak for or out of it and its concerns cannot but falter, unless it acknowledges and embraces a dimension of unsayability at its core. [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This section introduces an entirely different concept. Apophasis involves mentioning a subject even as you say you're going to avoid it. Using some kind of euphemism or circumlocution to refer to somebody is something else entirely. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon ( talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Does the article benefit from a plain "person X said Y" quotefarm, particularly when a lot of this is plucked directly from WP:PRIMARY sources? Earlier today I merged the Trump examples into a single contextual paragraph of "Huffington Post explicitly identified Trump as using apophasis" (although one of the quotes is still from a primary source) but User:Pdxuser split it back out, preferring the section as a flat list of quotes under a "Donald Trump" subheading.
I appreciate that examples can help to explain a subject like this, but MOS:QUOTE recommends to "intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations", rather than presenting them without context (is the Adams quote famous? Was he obliquely declaring war, reacting to a tacit declaration of it, or something else?) or a secondary source for the reader to look into. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we please keep the political nonsense off this page. All mention of candidates should be removed and there is no need for pseudo debates about WP:OR and so forth—such commentary is just a smokescreen for the actual issue which is encyclopedic value, aka WP:DUE. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The wording around the Cicero quote could lead some people to believe that Clodia was the prosecutor, but I don't think that's the case (not even possible in the Roman legal system). AnonMoos ( talk) 02:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see three nearly identical rhetorical devices:
Are these really the same? What are the subtle differences between them that we can bring out? I am linking the pages together in the see alsos and putting references to this talk page in hopes that one of us has more clue than me. Gary 18:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I tried to merge them together in a way that acknowledges the variety of meanings. Ashibaka tock 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm slightly puzzled as to what preterition has to do with apophasis; can someone explain what it's doing in there? Wooster (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
My original merge brought together a lot of related terms. Perhaps this article should be disambiguated into Paralipsis and Expeditio. Ashi b aka tock 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Apophasis from the greek roots is saying-away, literally to negate. Cataphasis from the greek roots is saying-with, literally to affirm.
It is very unlikely that "cataphasis ... is a rhetorical figure of speech wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked." This could be a meaning of apophasis. Apophasis and cataphasis are opposites, as seen in the Liddell-Scott Greek lexicon entry. I would guess that cataphasis should have its own page and not redirect here.
With regards to religion, apophasis is a statement about God by negation, by saying what He is not, used when speaking of the transcendence of God. Cataphasis is a positive statement about God, by saying what He is, used when speaking of the imminence of God.
Epte 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Praeteritio links here but there isn't a section on it, and while the device is proximal to these others it still differs in its use--especially historically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.176.4 ( talk) 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
One of the original points in this article, which I have (imprefectly) restored, was the fact that apophasis has fallen into disuse. Part of the reason for that is the failure to differentiate other related rhetorical devices. I think it was a mistake to merge these distinct if related terms. Having done so, however, it is important to discuss the relationships and the distinctions, which has not been done by those who advocated and made the merge. Edits since my last visit implicitly assert that aphophisis has no independent meaning other than as a superordinate for these other concepts. That's simply incorrect. It also has done harm to the understanding of the supposedly subordinate ideas. Economy1 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Occultatio section is lifted right from here: http://www.reference.com/search?q=Occultatio. Would anyone like to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.95.154 ( talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a section I deleted today. I removed it because it is not readily understandable, and the rest of the article seem to explain the subject "Apophasis" well enough on its own. --Spannerjam 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Apophasis ( Late Latin, from Greek ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι—apophemi, [1] "to say no" [2]) is defined as the rejection of several reasons why a thing should or should not be done and affirming a single one, considered most valid. [3] It refers, in general to when a contriver pretends to hide or leave out what he in fact is saying. [4] Apophasis covers a wide variety of figures of speech. According to William Franke, apophasis is essential because it lies at the root of [the Greeks'] common concern with elucidating how religion is vitally relevant to our self-understanding in a postmodern age. Religion is always deeply concerned with what cannot be adequately said, and any discourse that attempts to speak for or out of it and its concerns cannot but falter, unless it acknowledges and embraces a dimension of unsayability at its core. [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This section introduces an entirely different concept. Apophasis involves mentioning a subject even as you say you're going to avoid it. Using some kind of euphemism or circumlocution to refer to somebody is something else entirely. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon ( talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Does the article benefit from a plain "person X said Y" quotefarm, particularly when a lot of this is plucked directly from WP:PRIMARY sources? Earlier today I merged the Trump examples into a single contextual paragraph of "Huffington Post explicitly identified Trump as using apophasis" (although one of the quotes is still from a primary source) but User:Pdxuser split it back out, preferring the section as a flat list of quotes under a "Donald Trump" subheading.
I appreciate that examples can help to explain a subject like this, but MOS:QUOTE recommends to "intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations", rather than presenting them without context (is the Adams quote famous? Was he obliquely declaring war, reacting to a tacit declaration of it, or something else?) or a secondary source for the reader to look into. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we please keep the political nonsense off this page. All mention of candidates should be removed and there is no need for pseudo debates about WP:OR and so forth—such commentary is just a smokescreen for the actual issue which is encyclopedic value, aka WP:DUE. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The wording around the Cicero quote could lead some people to believe that Clodia was the prosecutor, but I don't think that's the case (not even possible in the Roman legal system). AnonMoos ( talk) 02:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)