![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
140.147.160.78 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
I may be off here, since I am not a native English speaker, but the example of Tennyson may be interpreted completely different and is therefor not a good example of syllepsis. The word 'mine' can be read as a verb. In that case the meaning of the sentence is: "He has his job, ~while I mine (in a coalmine)". I haven't read the whole text by Tennyson, but taken out of context, this example is ambiguous. Ven265 ( talk) 14:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
The syllepsis section contains this statement:
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)
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 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 the “More than Compounds?” section above, the writer (who was I, actually, writing anonymously) asks whether standard compound structures like “Dick and Jane run” qualify as zeugmas. I’ve been thinking this question over, and I have concluded that standard compound structures are not zeugmas, because they do not involve ellipsis. For example, “Dick and Jane run” is a perfectly normal sentence, with no missing (elided) words. It is not an elided form of “Dick run and Jane run.” That’s not even grammatical. An elided (zeugma) form of the sentence would be “Dick runs, and Jane.”
A problem with my theory is that some of the “classic” examples cited in the article are actually standard compounds. For example: “Povertie hath gotten conquest of thy riches, shame of thy pride, danger of thy safetie, folly of thy wisedome, weakenesse of thy strength, and time of thy imagined immortalitie.” No ellipsis in this sentence, just a compound direct object.
Despite the “classicness” of some of these examples, I propose that we “be bold” and resolve that these are, at best, weak examples of zeugma, and that we eliminate them from the article. Some other examples should be eliminated also, for other reasons. In all, I propose to eliminate the following:
At this point, I have to dredge up an even older debate – whether Syllepsis and Zeugma should be combined in the same article. I am trying to simplify the discussion by sticking to one source – the online source referenced in the article, Dr. Gideon O. Burton, Silva Rhetoricae. But it’s still confusing, because Burton says:
And:
And:
I think the best way to interpret all this is: [Point 1] Syllepsis is not the same as zeugma. A syllepsis can exist that is not a zeugma. A zeugma can exist that is not a syllepsis. [Point 2] Zeugma employs ellipsis, but syllepsis does not have to employ ellipsis. [Point 3] Although a zeugma is not always a syllepsis, it can be, if it presents a disparity in the way that the parallel members relate to the governing word.
So, based on the conclusion that a syllepsis can exist that is not a zeugma and zeugma can exist that is not a syllepsis, I would favor splitting the article back into two parts. Either that, or explain that syllepsis is a “semantic zeugma” – not formed by ellipsis but by semantic incongruity. This also has to be addressed in the lede. It is confusing that people – even rhetorical scholars – use “zeugma” and “syllepsis” in differing, contradictory, ways, so I think we have to identify the confusion, and explain how we ourselves are using the terms. For example:
In any case, based on the conclusion that a zeugma employs ellipsis but a syllepsis does not have to, I cannot judge the syllepsis examples in the article by my criterion for zeugma – that the examples must employ ellipsis. Most if not all of the syllepsis examples would fail, based on that criterion. So, I vote to retain all the syllepsis examples, except:
I also propose the following changes:
UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 02:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the intro section myself, but some points in case it gets reverted:
1
This is an English word with a standard English usage. (See cites or any English dictionary.) We are not following that usage on this page. We are not even following classic Greek usage. We are, as far as I can tell, following a single offline source from "Perfection Learning" press, whatever that is.
Now, that's not quite
WP:OR and the intro is clear that the term is defined a certain way for the purposes of this page. Nonetheless,
(a) this is a Bad Thing (imo) and I'd like to establish a community consensus that the page should reflect the common definition and
(b) we should in any case be very clear that the common use is not the one we are employing.
2
If we are erasing the overlap or synonymy between zeugma and syllepsis by selective definition, we should restore
syllepsis as a separate headword and move its material there. The only overlap would be notes (with cites) on both pages explaining the common definition.
3
It's nice that we're using classical and Elizabethan quotes here, but (a) we should have a modern example for each one as well and (b) we need to be better at sourcing the quotes that are added. —
LlywelynII 12:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that there are sources who support the article's previous section on "diazeugma disjunction" and "diazeugma conjunction", but the Roman rhetors in general and the Rhetorica ad Herennium in particular aren't among them.
The RaH ( IV.xxvii.) does not use the word "diazeugma" at all and uses disjunction and conjunction (and the unmentioned adjunction) solely to describe verbs and not nouns. I've left the RaH example as a general one in case "diazeugma" actually exist (w/tags, since it seems specious). I have, however, removed the proposed division of the terms pending a cite, as well as the terrible sentence "Stands accused, threatens our homes, revels in his crime, this man guilty of burglary asks our forgiveness" which would only ever be spoken in English by an A1-level non-native speaker.
There might be some legitimate Latin examples, but first we need to find a cite that the term itself is not OR. — LlywelynII 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone put a fact cite tag on the Peacham quotes due to internet laziness of finding the quotes herself. She might not of ever heard of Perseus, but all of them can be found here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0096%3Apart%3DSchemates%20Rhetorical%3Asubpart%3DThe%20first%20order%3Asection%3DFigures%20of%20Omission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.48.127 ( talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The best version of this article that I have read is the one by LlywelynII from January 24, 2013. Later editors have taken out too much, and the result is much less informative. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 19:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I restored some of the old info, particularly in the lede relating to ambiguity in the definitions. 23:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnvoicedConsonant ( talk • contribs)
The example from Benjamin Franklin: "We must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately," is not a zeugma, because it repeats the governing word "hang." To make it a zeugma, you would have to say something like "We must all hang together, or we will surely separately," but that doesn't really sound right, and it's not how Franklin is usually quoted. The example should be removed. 68.98.129.253 ( talk) 04:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with the edits from December 17, 2013. Two reasons: 1) I think too much important information has been removed, 2) I don't agree with the re-ordering of the four Types. I think Types 1 and 2 should reflect the definitions for Zeugma and Syllepsis that are most commonly used today, and that's the way the article was formerly arranged. In the new arrangement, the least common definition has become Type 1. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not the best expert in Latin but the given translation of "Vicit pudorem libido timorem audacia rationem amentia" is wrong on multiple accounts. I believe it is a good example of zeugma (although I am not sure whether it qualifies for 'prozeugma') since all the pairs are governed by the same verb "vicit", but the English text should definitely be: "Lust conquers shame, bravery - fear, and madness - reason."
"Give neither counsel nor salt" is listed as an English proverb. It's a French proverb too, and a Spanish one, and a Romanian one--because it's a Roman one. I can't find the original, though I know it's somewhere on Wikiquote. I don't remember it being attributed to anyone in particular. 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 ( talk) 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Edward P.J. Corbett and Robert J. Connors in Style and Statement (Oxford University Press, 1999) consider syllepsis as a category of pun defined as "[The] use of a word understood differently in relation to two or more words, which it modifies or governs. [1]
An heroic couplet from Alexander Pope’s poem The Rape of the Lock is provided as an example:
Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey,
Dost sometimes counsel take—and sometimes tea.
Here, “take” is the word which governs both “counsel” and “tea” (pronounced tay, rhymes with obey. [2]
Etymologist Mark Forsyth in the The Elements of Eloquence (Berkley|Penguin Publishing, 2014) employs the same verse from Pope’s Rape of the Lock to demonstrate syllepsis and “representing the most common form” of the figure, namely, a contrasting of abstract and concrete words - in this example, “counsel” and “tea”, respectively. [3] Both Corbett/Connors and Forsyth offer two additional verses that they categorize as syllepsis, also from Pope’s Rape of the Lock:
”Or stain her honour, or her new brocade” and “Or lose her heart, or necklace, at a ball”. [4] [5]
Corbett and Connors acknowledge that “these verses are often classified as zeugma [but] according to our definition, [are] examples of syllepsis.” The authors emphasize that with the figure syllepsis, the single governing word must be “grammatically and idiomatically compatible” with [all] of the words it governs.” [6]
This is not true of zeugma. Corbett and Connors define zeugma as a figure, like syllepsis, possessing a governing word, and two or more words which it modifies. In zeugma, however, “the single word does not fit grammatically or idiomatically with one member of the pair [or group of words].” They offer the following two examples of zeugma:
”Jane has murdered her father, and you may too” and “He maintained a flourishing business and racehorse”
In these examples, zeugma does not prescriptively form the pun of syllepsis, but rather “a faulty use of the scheme of ellipsis.” [7]
Forsyth’s first definition and example of zeugma comports with the Corbett/Conner definition of ellipsis: “deliberate omission of a word or of words which are readily implied by the context.”
Tom likes whisky, Dick vodka, Harry crack cocaine.” [8]
Forsyth’s second definition of zeugma is demonstrated with verses from Tennyson’s poem Ulysses and from William Shakespeare’s play Othello, respectively:
”He works his work, I mine” and “[She] has deceived a father, and may thee.” [9]
These examples match the Corbett/Connors definition of zeugma as “faulty ellipsis” by producing a solecism:
”The ringleader was hanged, and his accomplices imprisoned.”
Here, the verb "was is not grammatically compatible with the plural subject (accomplices) of the second clause.” [10]
Zeugma, “if skillfully managed, [can] be impressive as a display of wit” but may result in a ”howler”: “While in the fourth grade, my father took me to the zoo”. [11]
There are a couple of examples in the article that are not apt, and should be removed:
1) (Type 2 section) "As you can see, we can't." (show hosts referring to their blindfolds and addressing the audience).
This is not a Type 2 zeugma, because the word “see” (implied in the second clause) is used in the same sense in both clauses. “See” does have at least one other meaning (“understand”) but that is not how it is used here.
2) (Type 4 section) A related example can be heard in the above Type 1 citation from Tennyson, in which the final word "mine" can be taken as a verb, contrasting one form of work with another.
This does not qualify as a Type 4 zeugma. The word “mine” can be interpreted in two ways, but the Tennyson sentence does not employ both meanings simultaneously – at least not obviously so, so it’s not a good example. Also, neither meaning of “mine” is figurative. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 03:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
CerroFerro ( talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Zeugma (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there a special term for a zeugma/syllepsis in which the conjoined elements belong to different parts of speech, as in "today is hot and Christmas" where "hot" is an adjective and "Christmas" is a noun?
One notable example of such a zeugma/syllepsis used (in my opinion) poorly is the one introduced when the Australian government changed the official version of the national anthem a couple of years ago. "We are one and free" conjoins a noun to an adjective, to clumsy effect because the zeugma/syllepsis serves no rhetorical purpose. (It's also meaningless sentimentality but enough of my opinions.) Perhaps something could be made of this. 121.45.75.212 ( talk) 12:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The 4th definition is pretty much the definition of double entendre: "A special case of semantic syllepsis occurs when a word or phrase is used both in its figurative and literal sense at the same time."
In the interest of progress I'll delete it now and if anyone disagrees they can add it back. Nbrader ( talk) 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The 4th definition seems to be properly referenced, so I put it back in. It's a little different from double entendre, because double entendre could be any two meanings of the same words, whereas a "Type 4" zeugma has to be a literal and a figurative meaning. The example formerly here from the Rihanna song -- "only thing we got on is the radio" -- doesn't qualify as a Type 4, because it is not to be interpreted in both a literal and figurative way. If it were reworded as "we've got on the radio and no clothes" then it would be a Type 2. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
140.147.160.78 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
I may be off here, since I am not a native English speaker, but the example of Tennyson may be interpreted completely different and is therefor not a good example of syllepsis. The word 'mine' can be read as a verb. In that case the meaning of the sentence is: "He has his job, ~while I mine (in a coalmine)". I haven't read the whole text by Tennyson, but taken out of context, this example is ambiguous. Ven265 ( talk) 14:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
The syllepsis section contains this statement:
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)
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 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 the “More than Compounds?” section above, the writer (who was I, actually, writing anonymously) asks whether standard compound structures like “Dick and Jane run” qualify as zeugmas. I’ve been thinking this question over, and I have concluded that standard compound structures are not zeugmas, because they do not involve ellipsis. For example, “Dick and Jane run” is a perfectly normal sentence, with no missing (elided) words. It is not an elided form of “Dick run and Jane run.” That’s not even grammatical. An elided (zeugma) form of the sentence would be “Dick runs, and Jane.”
A problem with my theory is that some of the “classic” examples cited in the article are actually standard compounds. For example: “Povertie hath gotten conquest of thy riches, shame of thy pride, danger of thy safetie, folly of thy wisedome, weakenesse of thy strength, and time of thy imagined immortalitie.” No ellipsis in this sentence, just a compound direct object.
Despite the “classicness” of some of these examples, I propose that we “be bold” and resolve that these are, at best, weak examples of zeugma, and that we eliminate them from the article. Some other examples should be eliminated also, for other reasons. In all, I propose to eliminate the following:
At this point, I have to dredge up an even older debate – whether Syllepsis and Zeugma should be combined in the same article. I am trying to simplify the discussion by sticking to one source – the online source referenced in the article, Dr. Gideon O. Burton, Silva Rhetoricae. But it’s still confusing, because Burton says:
And:
And:
I think the best way to interpret all this is: [Point 1] Syllepsis is not the same as zeugma. A syllepsis can exist that is not a zeugma. A zeugma can exist that is not a syllepsis. [Point 2] Zeugma employs ellipsis, but syllepsis does not have to employ ellipsis. [Point 3] Although a zeugma is not always a syllepsis, it can be, if it presents a disparity in the way that the parallel members relate to the governing word.
So, based on the conclusion that a syllepsis can exist that is not a zeugma and zeugma can exist that is not a syllepsis, I would favor splitting the article back into two parts. Either that, or explain that syllepsis is a “semantic zeugma” – not formed by ellipsis but by semantic incongruity. This also has to be addressed in the lede. It is confusing that people – even rhetorical scholars – use “zeugma” and “syllepsis” in differing, contradictory, ways, so I think we have to identify the confusion, and explain how we ourselves are using the terms. For example:
In any case, based on the conclusion that a zeugma employs ellipsis but a syllepsis does not have to, I cannot judge the syllepsis examples in the article by my criterion for zeugma – that the examples must employ ellipsis. Most if not all of the syllepsis examples would fail, based on that criterion. So, I vote to retain all the syllepsis examples, except:
I also propose the following changes:
UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 02:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the intro section myself, but some points in case it gets reverted:
1
This is an English word with a standard English usage. (See cites or any English dictionary.) We are not following that usage on this page. We are not even following classic Greek usage. We are, as far as I can tell, following a single offline source from "Perfection Learning" press, whatever that is.
Now, that's not quite
WP:OR and the intro is clear that the term is defined a certain way for the purposes of this page. Nonetheless,
(a) this is a Bad Thing (imo) and I'd like to establish a community consensus that the page should reflect the common definition and
(b) we should in any case be very clear that the common use is not the one we are employing.
2
If we are erasing the overlap or synonymy between zeugma and syllepsis by selective definition, we should restore
syllepsis as a separate headword and move its material there. The only overlap would be notes (with cites) on both pages explaining the common definition.
3
It's nice that we're using classical and Elizabethan quotes here, but (a) we should have a modern example for each one as well and (b) we need to be better at sourcing the quotes that are added. —
LlywelynII 12:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that there are sources who support the article's previous section on "diazeugma disjunction" and "diazeugma conjunction", but the Roman rhetors in general and the Rhetorica ad Herennium in particular aren't among them.
The RaH ( IV.xxvii.) does not use the word "diazeugma" at all and uses disjunction and conjunction (and the unmentioned adjunction) solely to describe verbs and not nouns. I've left the RaH example as a general one in case "diazeugma" actually exist (w/tags, since it seems specious). I have, however, removed the proposed division of the terms pending a cite, as well as the terrible sentence "Stands accused, threatens our homes, revels in his crime, this man guilty of burglary asks our forgiveness" which would only ever be spoken in English by an A1-level non-native speaker.
There might be some legitimate Latin examples, but first we need to find a cite that the term itself is not OR. — LlywelynII 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone put a fact cite tag on the Peacham quotes due to internet laziness of finding the quotes herself. She might not of ever heard of Perseus, but all of them can be found here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0096%3Apart%3DSchemates%20Rhetorical%3Asubpart%3DThe%20first%20order%3Asection%3DFigures%20of%20Omission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.48.127 ( talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The best version of this article that I have read is the one by LlywelynII from January 24, 2013. Later editors have taken out too much, and the result is much less informative. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 19:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I restored some of the old info, particularly in the lede relating to ambiguity in the definitions. 23:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnvoicedConsonant ( talk • contribs)
The example from Benjamin Franklin: "We must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately," is not a zeugma, because it repeats the governing word "hang." To make it a zeugma, you would have to say something like "We must all hang together, or we will surely separately," but that doesn't really sound right, and it's not how Franklin is usually quoted. The example should be removed. 68.98.129.253 ( talk) 04:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with the edits from December 17, 2013. Two reasons: 1) I think too much important information has been removed, 2) I don't agree with the re-ordering of the four Types. I think Types 1 and 2 should reflect the definitions for Zeugma and Syllepsis that are most commonly used today, and that's the way the article was formerly arranged. In the new arrangement, the least common definition has become Type 1. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not the best expert in Latin but the given translation of "Vicit pudorem libido timorem audacia rationem amentia" is wrong on multiple accounts. I believe it is a good example of zeugma (although I am not sure whether it qualifies for 'prozeugma') since all the pairs are governed by the same verb "vicit", but the English text should definitely be: "Lust conquers shame, bravery - fear, and madness - reason."
"Give neither counsel nor salt" is listed as an English proverb. It's a French proverb too, and a Spanish one, and a Romanian one--because it's a Roman one. I can't find the original, though I know it's somewhere on Wikiquote. I don't remember it being attributed to anyone in particular. 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 ( talk) 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Edward P.J. Corbett and Robert J. Connors in Style and Statement (Oxford University Press, 1999) consider syllepsis as a category of pun defined as "[The] use of a word understood differently in relation to two or more words, which it modifies or governs. [1]
An heroic couplet from Alexander Pope’s poem The Rape of the Lock is provided as an example:
Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey,
Dost sometimes counsel take—and sometimes tea.
Here, “take” is the word which governs both “counsel” and “tea” (pronounced tay, rhymes with obey. [2]
Etymologist Mark Forsyth in the The Elements of Eloquence (Berkley|Penguin Publishing, 2014) employs the same verse from Pope’s Rape of the Lock to demonstrate syllepsis and “representing the most common form” of the figure, namely, a contrasting of abstract and concrete words - in this example, “counsel” and “tea”, respectively. [3] Both Corbett/Connors and Forsyth offer two additional verses that they categorize as syllepsis, also from Pope’s Rape of the Lock:
”Or stain her honour, or her new brocade” and “Or lose her heart, or necklace, at a ball”. [4] [5]
Corbett and Connors acknowledge that “these verses are often classified as zeugma [but] according to our definition, [are] examples of syllepsis.” The authors emphasize that with the figure syllepsis, the single governing word must be “grammatically and idiomatically compatible” with [all] of the words it governs.” [6]
This is not true of zeugma. Corbett and Connors define zeugma as a figure, like syllepsis, possessing a governing word, and two or more words which it modifies. In zeugma, however, “the single word does not fit grammatically or idiomatically with one member of the pair [or group of words].” They offer the following two examples of zeugma:
”Jane has murdered her father, and you may too” and “He maintained a flourishing business and racehorse”
In these examples, zeugma does not prescriptively form the pun of syllepsis, but rather “a faulty use of the scheme of ellipsis.” [7]
Forsyth’s first definition and example of zeugma comports with the Corbett/Conner definition of ellipsis: “deliberate omission of a word or of words which are readily implied by the context.”
Tom likes whisky, Dick vodka, Harry crack cocaine.” [8]
Forsyth’s second definition of zeugma is demonstrated with verses from Tennyson’s poem Ulysses and from William Shakespeare’s play Othello, respectively:
”He works his work, I mine” and “[She] has deceived a father, and may thee.” [9]
These examples match the Corbett/Connors definition of zeugma as “faulty ellipsis” by producing a solecism:
”The ringleader was hanged, and his accomplices imprisoned.”
Here, the verb "was is not grammatically compatible with the plural subject (accomplices) of the second clause.” [10]
Zeugma, “if skillfully managed, [can] be impressive as a display of wit” but may result in a ”howler”: “While in the fourth grade, my father took me to the zoo”. [11]
There are a couple of examples in the article that are not apt, and should be removed:
1) (Type 2 section) "As you can see, we can't." (show hosts referring to their blindfolds and addressing the audience).
This is not a Type 2 zeugma, because the word “see” (implied in the second clause) is used in the same sense in both clauses. “See” does have at least one other meaning (“understand”) but that is not how it is used here.
2) (Type 4 section) A related example can be heard in the above Type 1 citation from Tennyson, in which the final word "mine" can be taken as a verb, contrasting one form of work with another.
This does not qualify as a Type 4 zeugma. The word “mine” can be interpreted in two ways, but the Tennyson sentence does not employ both meanings simultaneously – at least not obviously so, so it’s not a good example. Also, neither meaning of “mine” is figurative. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) 03:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
CerroFerro ( talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Zeugma (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there a special term for a zeugma/syllepsis in which the conjoined elements belong to different parts of speech, as in "today is hot and Christmas" where "hot" is an adjective and "Christmas" is a noun?
One notable example of such a zeugma/syllepsis used (in my opinion) poorly is the one introduced when the Australian government changed the official version of the national anthem a couple of years ago. "We are one and free" conjoins a noun to an adjective, to clumsy effect because the zeugma/syllepsis serves no rhetorical purpose. (It's also meaningless sentimentality but enough of my opinions.) Perhaps something could be made of this. 121.45.75.212 ( talk) 12:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The 4th definition is pretty much the definition of double entendre: "A special case of semantic syllepsis occurs when a word or phrase is used both in its figurative and literal sense at the same time."
In the interest of progress I'll delete it now and if anyone disagrees they can add it back. Nbrader ( talk) 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The 4th definition seems to be properly referenced, so I put it back in. It's a little different from double entendre, because double entendre could be any two meanings of the same words, whereas a "Type 4" zeugma has to be a literal and a figurative meaning. The example formerly here from the Rihanna song -- "only thing we got on is the radio" -- doesn't qualify as a Type 4, because it is not to be interpreted in both a literal and figurative way. If it were reworded as "we've got on the radio and no clothes" then it would be a Type 2. UnvoicedConsonant ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)