Talk:Zeugma and syllepsis

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

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)

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

And that is my favorite too, but it's not mentioned in the source we currently assign it to as an example of zeugma. It's quite obvious to me that it is, but are we allowed to do this? I wanted to add MAKE OUT NOT WAR but I wasnt confident enough to just add it by itself. —Soap— 19:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

There is another:

"Jack is in his corset, Jane is in her vest, and me, I'm in a rock 'n' roll band." (The Velvet Underground, "Sweet Jane")

The definition given clearly states that "a single word is used with two other parts of a sentence but must be understood differently in relation to each" (my italics). These sentences are not examples of zeugma. I will remove them. — 91.238.123.116 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2015 (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)

Since over eleven years later, no-one has replied to your question, it seems likely no-one else understands it either. Are you getting too hung-up on whether the yoking word is a verb or a noun? It shouldn't really matter which. 2.31.164.0 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2020 (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)

If you diagrammed the sentence you would see your first impression of it is incorrect. Loud does not necessarily modify lightning. It may "agree" with lighting in number, but as you may recall from your Ancient Greek and Latin courses that the more fully inflected languages have other descriptors for nouns and adjectives such as declension, number, gender, case, and function. In Latin, it is easier to understand the grammatical structure of a sentence because the adjectives will agree with the nouns they modify in declension (1st and 2nd), number, gender, and case. (e.g. bestiae ferae, "wild beasts" the adjective ferae is feminine, 1st declension, singular, nominative, and modifies the noun "bestiae"). Similarly, in the example sentence, the adjective "loud" is singular, nominative (part of the subject clause), and modifies thunder. It does not modify lightning so it does not "agree" with it simply and only because it has the same number. In the sentence, "Bob and Sue entered the wilderness, but the boyish forgot the canteen" does the adjective "boyish" agree with "Sue"? It is singular, but it has a gender. The gender would not agree with Sue, but this could be a reversal of rolls; therefore, "boyish" could modify either Bob or Sue and the grammar is ambiguous. Such is the consequence of a less fully inflected language. In the loud lightning sentence, loud could either modify lightning with its meaning understood as "bright", or loud modifies thunder and the adjective "bright" is understood although it is omitted in the form of a zeugma. So the question is whether the sentence employs a trope or a scheme[1]. A scheme in the form of a zeugma or a trope in the form of a catachresis[2]. This is why the grammar is ambiguous and this is why your first impression of the sentence is incorrect. You may feel a bit more comfortable editing articles on rhetoric if you were to study Quintilian, Cicero, and Henry Peacham a bit more. We would benefit if you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.153.200 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several errors in the paragraph above:

1) Diagramming the sentence does not necessarily change the first impression of it. The sentence can easily be diagrammed with loud modifying lightning, thus reinforcing the first impression.

2) Whether loud modifies lightning is irrelevant to the question whether it grammatically agrees with it. It does grammatically agree with it, and the original comment by 94.194.48.42 above is correct.

3) Latin has at least five declensions of nouns, not just the 1st and 2nd declensions.

4) Bestiae ferae might be a plural nominative, a singular genitive, an singular dative, or even a plural vocative, but not a singular nominative.

5) The adjective boyish does not have gender. Grammatically, the sentences He is boyish and She is boyish are equally correct.

6) The word rolls in this context should be spelled roles.

7) In the sentence about Bob and Sue, boyish “modifies” neither Bob nor Sue. It can’t, because it is in a completely different clause. It can “refer” to either Bob or Sue. It might also refer to an unnamed third party.

8) It is fairly common, and perfectly proper, to refer to something visually startling as loud. Such use does not qualify as improper application (or catachresis).

Bottom line: The phrase loud lightning and thunder might mean (among other things) loud lightning and thunder or loud lightning and loud thunder, so the grammar is indeed ambiguous, but not because loud disagrees grammatically with lightning. It doesn’t disagree.

Side note: In the article, this is the only example of “ambiguous” grammar that actually is ambiguous, but its ambiguity is not obvious, so it is not a very good example. A better example would be green eggs and ham. Is the ham green, or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.92.117 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another error in the above: Latin does not require nouns and their adjectives to agree in declension.70.179.92.117 (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change the name of the heading, and remove the "lightning and thunder" example. 70.179.92.117 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2011 (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)

Nouns? Prepositions?

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)

More than compounds?

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)

possibly erroneous example

"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)

Idioms?

The syllepsis section contains this statement:

Syllepsis can be used with idiomatic phrases to achieve a similar result:

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)

Reddit "vandalism"

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 edit is vandalism: crude humor, by some reddit users attempting to make a joke by adding an extract from a porn story to the page. It is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it's clearly being added by them because they think it's funny, not because they think it is beneficial to the page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The example may have come from "a porn story", but that does not mean the G-rated example itself is poor or unfit for the page (else, I hope there are no lines taken from Lolita on any Wikipedia pages). Funny examples are also often the best examples, and should not be excluded for humorous content alone; I'm pretty sure that's why the examples from So I Married An Axe Murderer and from Groucho Marx are on the page. As for "crude humor", it's no more crude than the Bob Kanefsky example about turning down a man's advances and the lack of power to resist him or the 2001 Lyttle Lytton Contest example about an exploding woman and bits of her pancreas.

--Fishbert (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So it's more important to allow this page to become the joke of a bunch of horny teenagers than to keep Wikipedia a serious and professional encyclopedia? Most of your argument consists of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The example is not a good one for this page, it is taken from an internet forum, from an unprofessional piece of text, and added at the whim of a group of people who think they're being funny, and do not actually care about if this is good for Wikipedia or not. It's a poor example for the page, certainly not "the best example," besides which there are many examples listed already - more than enough in fact. However, I really do not have the energy to argue over it further. So, if you can get consensus for it, then re-add it, until you do so it is not going to be there. That is all I have to say here, your next stop should be Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a fairly clear bias in this issue, concerned more with attacking the individual making an edit ("a bunch of horny teenagers" -- I'd be interested to hear any evidence you have to support this label on anyone who made a recent edit to the article) than the actual content of the edit that was made.

Merely pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not sufficient reason to discount the argument. I'd refer to the 2nd paragraph of that guideline: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'"

That the example provided in the edit may not be necessary for the article (for any of the reasons you only just now mention) is perfectly valid criticism of the content of the edit, and worthy of an open discussion (which I attempted to start) on this article discussion page; perhaps you should have opened with that to begin with instead of just protecting the page and calling people making a reasonable edit that you disagreed with trolls and vandals. And since it appears we're all about telling people where to go now (not condescending at all, I'm sure), your next stop should be either Wikipedia:Avoid_the_word_"vandal" or Wikipedia:Make_protection_requests_sparingly (or both?).

--Fishbert (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Syllepsis with grammatical disagreement

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 rhetoric, a grammatical error which serves no purpose is called a vice. When it serves a purpose it is called a solecism and not an error afterall. Quintillian gave a discourse about this about 2000 years ago and we have had examples of intentional "bad grammar" throughout western litterature. If you do a search for the term "solecisim" in Quintillian's work[3] you will find some Latin examples. Quintillian restricts the term solecism to refer to disagreements of number and gender only. Quintillian was hesitant to declare that Vergil was incorrect for using improper gender in his sentences in the Aeneid. In the sentence, "The sky--and my hopes--is falling," the phrase "the sky is falling" is retained. This is a common idiom in English, the error is intentional, and the syllepsis employs a scheme of grammar to this effect. Shakespeare was fond of the solecism as in "Yes, you have seen Cassio and she together," Othello, Act IV scene ii. Othello, soon to take her life, is characterizing Desdemonda in the subject case. "Her" should be used but promoting her to a subject rather than a mere object in the sentence creates greater emphasis on "she." To answer your question, "poor grammar" passes as effective writing in the English language. We do not fault Shakespeare for his "poor grammar," but you might disagree. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Weak Examples

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:

“Prozeugma” Section:

(cited above, as a standard compound direct object) “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.”

“Mr. Jones took his coat and his leave” (standard compound direct object)

“He proposed seven times once in a hackney-coach once in a boat once in a pew once on a donkey at Tunbridge Wells and the rest on his knees.” (This sentence has multiple phrases modifying the verb “proposed,” but not multiple clauses, and there is no ellipsis.)

“Hypozeugma” Section:

“Aut morbo aut vetustate formae dignitas deflorescit,” translated as "Either with disease or age, physical beauty fades." (The English is a standard prepositional phrase with a compound object. A more literal translation of the Latin would be "Either with disease or with age, physical beauty fades," which is even less zeugma-like. The Latin does not employ ellipsis.)

“τοὺς οὔτε νιφετός, οὐκ ὄμβρος, οὐ καῦμα, οὐ νὺξ ἔργει μὴ οὐ κατανύσαι τὸν προκείμενον αὐτῷ δρόμον τὴν ταχίστην,” translated as "These are stopped neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed." (The English is in the same category as the previous example -- a standard prepositional phrase with a compound object. I don’t read Greek well, so I can’t comment on it, but if the English example isn’t strong then I think we should delete it from English Wikipedia.)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.” (Not an ellipsis, just an address to multiple groups.)

"Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride, Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride/On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere." (This is maybe a good example of a periodic sentence, but it is not an ellipsis. The only word that governs two other phrases is the subject “Paul Revere,” which relates to “impatient to ride” and “booted and spurred,” but that’s not a good example of zeugma.)

"Family, religion, friendship . . . are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.” (Standard compound subject.)

“Diazeugma” Section:

“Formae dignitas aut morbo deflorescit aut vetustate extinguitur,” translated as “Physical beauty: with disease it fades; with age it dies.” (The English is not a zeugma because it repeats the subject “it.” A more zeugma-like (and more literal) translation might be “Physical beauty either with disease fades or with age dies,” but this is just a standard compound verb, not an ellipsis. Same goes for the original Latin.)

“Despairing in the heat and in the sun, we marched, cursing in the rain and in the cold.” (This has two modifiers of the subject “we,” but no ellipsis.)

“Syllepsis” Section:

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:

[Point 1][Syllepsis:] When a single word that governs or modifies two or more others must be understood differently with respect to each of those words. A combination of grammatical parallelism and semantic incongruity, often with a witty or comical effect. Not to be confused with zeugma. [Emphasis mine]

And:

[Point 2][Zeugma:] A general term describing when one part of speech . . . governs two or more other parts of a sentence (often in a series) . . . Zeugma comprises several more specialized terms, all of which employ ellipsis and parallelism . . .

And:

[Point 3] Zeugma is sometimes used simply as a synonym for syllepsis, though that term is better understood as a more specific kind of zeugma: when there is disparity in the way that the parallel members relate to the governing word (as a vice or for comic effect).

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:

“There are multiple, sometimes contradictory, definitions for “zeugma” in current use. They include:

1) A figure of speech employing parallelism and ellipsis, where a single word governs two or more other parts of a sentence

2) A figure of speech, not necessarily employing ellipsis, where a single word is used in relation to two other parts of a sentence, but grammatically agrees with only one

3) A figure of speech, not necessarily employing ellipsis, where a single word is used in relation to two other parts of a sentence, but must be understood with a different meaning in relation to each

In this article, the first definition is used for “zeugma.” The second and third definitions are also widely-accepted definitions for “syllepsis,” and are used as definitions for “syllepsis” in this article.”

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:

“ . . . If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.” (This is a great Groucho Marx line, and I hate to ax it, but the main joke is the pun on the words “huff” and “half.” A reader would have to get past the main joke to realize the line might be read as “leave in a minute and in a huff.” So it’s a hard example to understand, especially as the full quotation encompasses three sentences, only one of which has a (hidden) syllepsis. So, either the example should be removed, or an explanatory paragraph added.)

“The size of the polenta was proportionate to the quality of the harvest, not to the number and enthusiasm of the assembled company.” (This has two prepositional phrases modifying “proportionate,” but “proportionate” is used in the same way in relation to the two phrases. There is no change in meaning, so no syllepsis.)

I also propose the following changes:

Eliminate the statement “Syllepsis can be used with idiomatic phrases to achieve a similar result” because none of the examples that follow it employ idioms.

Move the "Both loud lightning and thunder shook the temple walls" example out of the “Syllepsis with figures and schemes of grammar” section, because it is not ungrammatical. The paragraph of explanation following this example is highly speculative and questionable (and unsupported by references), and should be deleted.

UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented most of the above.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem with your decision is that it contradicts these classic texts about zeugma. When these authors talk about zeugma, these are the examples they use. What you call "weak" examples are in fact the examples. 24.190.56.12 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you, because I haven't read all the sources. On the other hand, it is clear that the sources do not agree, so (as stated above) I was trying to stick to one source (Dr. Gideon O. Burton, Silva Rhetoricae). Perhaps what is needed is a study of the sources -- how they differ and why.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Awful article: this is *not* the common definition of zeugma

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)

Errors in the diazeugma section

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)

Lazy fact cite tag

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)

Old Information should be Restored

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)

If the best choice is "bad", then the choice must be "none". --Spannerjam 10:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Doesn't Fit

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 will go ahead and delete it.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It'd be "We must all hang together, or, surely, we shall separately." 2.31.164.0 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Too Much Removed

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 have restored what I think is the crucial information, and re-ordered the definitions with the most commonly-used definitions first.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cicero's citation in the "prozeugma" section

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."

Not sure I follow your reasoning on this. "Vicit" is a Latin verb in the perfect tense, so "conquered" is a good translation. "Has conquered" would be acceptable, but not "conquers." You favor "bravery" over "audacity," but the two are synonymous, so either acceptable. You insert "and," but the Latin does not employ a conjunction and the English does not require it. Your punctuation is also different, but the given punctuation is (in my opinion) just as effective. Regarding its standing as a Prozeugma, it certainly contains the governing word in the first clause, so would qualify as a Prozeugma based on the given definition.68.98.129.253 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(English proverb)

"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)

Edited article proposal - comments welcome

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.

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.

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. 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”.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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”.

Examples to Remove

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)

Sources

• Corbett, Edward P. J. and Connors, Robert J. 1999. Style and Statement. Oxford University Press. New York, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-511543-0
• Forsyth, Mark. 2014.The Elements of Eloquence. Berkley Publishing Group/Penguin Publishing. New York. ISBN 978-0-425-27618-1

CerroFerro (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Question and notable example

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)

Type 4 is double entendre. Delete it?

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)