Talk:Zeugma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)