![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just started this page as part of our rhetoric wikiportal. Please feel free to add terms or edit the formatting as you see fit. -- Matt 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I see the article has a "Move to Wiktionary" template. Though I agree that the individual definitions should be copied to Wiktionary, I think the value of this article is to inform the reader what rhetorical terms there are and allow him/her to select the appropriate term for a particular purpose on the basis of brief definitions (with links to discussions on things like zeugma and sysllepsis). Personally, I have frequently wanted to use a term and forgotten what it was called. I have also sometimes wanted to look up two terms to see which one is most applicable and found useful information that I had not been looking for. I am thinking, for instance, about all the different ways to achieve a particular effect by not using the normal (literal-meaning) word for a specific concept(metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, litotes, . . .) or unusual word order or word combinations (including repetition) for effect (alliteration, anadiplosis, anaphora, anistrophe, auxesis, chiasmus, epiphora, . . .). -- So I support a copy, but oppose subsequent deletion (which "move" would imply). -- Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A merge with Stylistic device and/or Figure of speech might be a appropriate.I see a merge of those two articles has been proposed. At least, there should be links to those articles, in my opinion. -- Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
make this properly linkable directly to each word. Wandalstouring 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What about repetition on the list?
I was just writing a little piece of invective and employed a favorite device of mine. Here's a made-up example of it:
"I could mention that my opponent has three wives, but instead out of politeness I won't say a word on the subject."
This list doesn't help me at all to find out what the technical name for this device is. I'm quite sure I'm not the first person in history to use it, so it's there somewhere, but which is it?
ISTM that this list would be better if the entries were also grouped by type of device. For example, under Syntactical Devices you would include those rearrangements of word order sometimes used in rhetoric.
Regrettably, the world no longer has professors of rhetoric to sort this out, but if anyone reading has the necessary expertise to create such a categorization, they would be doing rhetorically minded Wikipedia readers a service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Glossary of rhetoric terms → Glossary of rhetorical terms – Or glossary of terms in rhetoric. Per grammar (i.e., WP:ENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME): "rhetoric" is an obscure Latinate adj and far better understood as a noun. Page was established at standard English as Glossary of rhetorical terms and moved unilaterally and badly by User:SMcCandlish.— LlywelynII 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a very large number of these terms are unsourced and unlinked. Generally, we need verification for information on Wikipedia; in this case we need verification that 1) the terms provided are actually commonly used in the field, enough to justify inclusion in a glossary and 2) that the definitions are "accurate" (in the sense that they match the way the words are commonly used in the field). While it would be awesome if someone with access to reference works could start verifying this, I think that absent such a volunteer, we should trim the list down only to blue-linked or referenced items. Is anyone going to object if I start doing that ? Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this right? Gregkaye ( talk) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Long list of terms here, including some currently omitted, such as synthesis (not in the Hegelian sense) and compositio (former anglicized form, "composition"). — LlywelynII 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I studied logic and linguistics at university and at one stage learned about the above two concepts. A lemma was explained to me as a proof that is incidental to the main or target proof, while a dilemma (two lemmas) was explained as two separate lemmas that were contradictory. In my opinion both can be used as rhetorical terms in addition to their original usage.
I have often used these concepts in my daily life when formulating my own arguments but I do not know how much these terms have been used in common (English) speech. My opinion is that they should be added to the list, specifically Lemma - /info/en/?search=Lemma_(mathematics) and Dilemma - /info/en/?search=Dilemma but I decided against it until I received input as to relevance.
Does anyone else have experience and or opinion on this ? Rags17 ( talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just started this page as part of our rhetoric wikiportal. Please feel free to add terms or edit the formatting as you see fit. -- Matt 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I see the article has a "Move to Wiktionary" template. Though I agree that the individual definitions should be copied to Wiktionary, I think the value of this article is to inform the reader what rhetorical terms there are and allow him/her to select the appropriate term for a particular purpose on the basis of brief definitions (with links to discussions on things like zeugma and sysllepsis). Personally, I have frequently wanted to use a term and forgotten what it was called. I have also sometimes wanted to look up two terms to see which one is most applicable and found useful information that I had not been looking for. I am thinking, for instance, about all the different ways to achieve a particular effect by not using the normal (literal-meaning) word for a specific concept(metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, litotes, . . .) or unusual word order or word combinations (including repetition) for effect (alliteration, anadiplosis, anaphora, anistrophe, auxesis, chiasmus, epiphora, . . .). -- So I support a copy, but oppose subsequent deletion (which "move" would imply). -- Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A merge with Stylistic device and/or Figure of speech might be a appropriate.I see a merge of those two articles has been proposed. At least, there should be links to those articles, in my opinion. -- Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
make this properly linkable directly to each word. Wandalstouring 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What about repetition on the list?
I was just writing a little piece of invective and employed a favorite device of mine. Here's a made-up example of it:
"I could mention that my opponent has three wives, but instead out of politeness I won't say a word on the subject."
This list doesn't help me at all to find out what the technical name for this device is. I'm quite sure I'm not the first person in history to use it, so it's there somewhere, but which is it?
ISTM that this list would be better if the entries were also grouped by type of device. For example, under Syntactical Devices you would include those rearrangements of word order sometimes used in rhetoric.
Regrettably, the world no longer has professors of rhetoric to sort this out, but if anyone reading has the necessary expertise to create such a categorization, they would be doing rhetorically minded Wikipedia readers a service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Glossary of rhetoric terms → Glossary of rhetorical terms – Or glossary of terms in rhetoric. Per grammar (i.e., WP:ENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME): "rhetoric" is an obscure Latinate adj and far better understood as a noun. Page was established at standard English as Glossary of rhetorical terms and moved unilaterally and badly by User:SMcCandlish.— LlywelynII 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a very large number of these terms are unsourced and unlinked. Generally, we need verification for information on Wikipedia; in this case we need verification that 1) the terms provided are actually commonly used in the field, enough to justify inclusion in a glossary and 2) that the definitions are "accurate" (in the sense that they match the way the words are commonly used in the field). While it would be awesome if someone with access to reference works could start verifying this, I think that absent such a volunteer, we should trim the list down only to blue-linked or referenced items. Is anyone going to object if I start doing that ? Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this right? Gregkaye ( talk) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Long list of terms here, including some currently omitted, such as synthesis (not in the Hegelian sense) and compositio (former anglicized form, "composition"). — LlywelynII 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I studied logic and linguistics at university and at one stage learned about the above two concepts. A lemma was explained to me as a proof that is incidental to the main or target proof, while a dilemma (two lemmas) was explained as two separate lemmas that were contradictory. In my opinion both can be used as rhetorical terms in addition to their original usage.
I have often used these concepts in my daily life when formulating my own arguments but I do not know how much these terms have been used in common (English) speech. My opinion is that they should be added to the list, specifically Lemma - /info/en/?search=Lemma_(mathematics) and Dilemma - /info/en/?search=Dilemma but I decided against it until I received input as to relevance.
Does anyone else have experience and or opinion on this ? Rags17 ( talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)