<<damnit arianny (you) slut
try a role model for your addiction @arianny
mirror
pay up
antimetabole
In rhetoric, antimetabole is the repetition of words in successive clauses, but in transposed order; for example, "I know what I like, and I like what I know". It is related to, and sometimes considered a special case of, chiasmus.
>chiasmus
In rhetoric, chiasmus or, less commonly, chiasm is a "reversal of grammatical structures in successive phrases or clauses – but no repetition of words".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus
Both chiasmus and antimetabole can be used to reinforce antithesis.[6] In chiasmus, the clauses display inverted parallelism. Chiasmus was particularly popular in the literature of the ancient world, including Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, where it was used to articulate the balance of order within the text. For example, many long and complex chiasmi have been found in Shakespeare[7] and the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible.[8] It is also found throughout the Book of Mormon[9] and the Quran.[10]
Chiasmus can be used in the structure of entire passages to parallel concepts or ideas. This process, termed "conceptual chiasmus", uses a criss-crossing rhetorical structure to cause an overlapping of "intellectual space".[11] Conceptual chiasmus utilizes specific linguistic choices, often metaphors, to create a connection between two differing disciplines.[11] By employing a chiastic structure to a single presented concept, rhetors encourage one area of thought to consider an opposing area's perspective.
Chiasmus derives its effectiveness from its symmetrical structure. The structural symmetry of the chiasmus imposes the impression upon the reader or listener that the entire argument has been accounted for.[12] In other words, chiasmus creates only two sides of an argument or idea for the listener to consider, and then leads the listener to favor one side of the argument. In former President John F. Kennedy's famous quote, "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country",[13] the only two questions that the chiastic statement allows for are whether the listener should ask what the country can do for him, or ask what he can do for his country. The statement also proposes that the latter statement is more favorable. Thus, chiasmus gains its rhetorical efficacy through symmetrical structure causing the belief that all tenets of an argument have been evaluated.
The Wilhelmus, the national anthem of the Netherlands, has a structure composed around a thematic chiasmus: the 15 stanzas of the text are symmetrical, in that verses one and 15 resemble one another in meaning, as do verses two and 14, three and 13, etc., until they converge in the eighth verse, the heart of the song. Written in the 16th century, the Wilhelmus originated in the nation's struggle to achieve independence. It tells of the Father of the Nation William of Orange who was stadholder in the Netherlands under the king of Spain. In the first person, as if quoting himself, William speaks to the Dutch people and tells about both the outer conflict – the Dutch Revolt – as well as his own, inner struggle: on one hand, he tries to be faithful to the king of Spain,[14] on the other hand he is above all faithful to his conscience: to serve God and the Dutch people. This is made apparent in the central 8th stanza: "Oh David, thou soughtest shelter from King Saul's tyranny. Even so I fled this welter". Here the comparison is made between the biblical David and William of Orange as merciful and just leaders who both serve under tyrannic kings. As the merciful David defeats the unjust Saul and is rewarded by God with the kingdom of Israel, so too, with the help of God, will William be rewarded a kingdom; being either or both the Netherlands, and the kingdom of God.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpositional_pun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antanaclasis
kiss my ass mattis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.[1][2] Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first?" routine is a well known example of equivocation.[3][4]
It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
Some examples of equivocation in syllogisms (a logical chain of reasoning) are below:
Since only man [human] is rational,
and no woman is a man [male],
Therefore, no woman is rational.[1]
A feather is light [not heavy].
What is light [bright] cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In the above example, distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements.
All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyptoton
Polyptoton /ˌpɒlɪpˈtoʊtɒn/ is the stylistic scheme in which words derived from the same root are repeated (such as "strong" and "strength"). A related stylistic device is antanaclasis, in which the same word is repeated, but each time with a different sense. Another related term is figura etymologica.
In inflected languages polyptoton is the same word being repeated but appearing each time in a different case. (for example, "Iuppiter", "Iovis", "Iovi", "Iovem", "Iove" [in Latin being the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and ablative forms of "Iuppiter" (the god Jupiter), respectively]).
The form is relatively common in Latin Christian poetry and prose in a construction called the superlative genitive, in phrases such as sanctum sanctorum ("holy of holies"), and found its way into languages such as Old English, which naturally preferred the prevalent alliteration that is part and parcel of polyptoton—in fact, polyptoton is "much more prevalent in Old English verse than in Latin verse." The specific superlative genitive in Old English, however, occurs only in Latinate Christian poems, not in secular poetry.[1]
It is also used in public speaking, and several examples can be found in Churchill's speeches.
G. K. Chesterton frequently employed this device to create paradox:
It is the same with all the powerful of to-day; it is the same, for instance, with the high-placed and high-paid official. Not only is the judge not judicial, but the arbiter is not even arbitrary.
— G.K. Chesterton, The Man on Top (1912)[2]
In combination with verbal active and passive voices, it points out the idea of a latent reciprocity:
Judge not, that ye be not judged
— Matthew 7:1[3]
An alternative way to use the device is to develop polyptoton over the course of an entire novel, which is done in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Shelley combines polyptoton with periphrastic naming, which is the technique of referring to someone using several indirect names. The creature in Frankenstein is referred to by many terms, such as "fiend", "devil", "being", and "ogre". However, the first term that Shelley uses in reference to the creature is "wretch". Throughout the novel, various forms of this are used, such as "wretchedly" and "wretchedness", which may be seen as polyptoton. According to Duyfhuizen, the gradual development of polyptoton in Frankenstein is significant because it symbolizes the intricacies of one's own identity.[4]
just say no to queer zeugma
In rhetoric, zeugma (/ˈzjuːɡmə/ (About this sound listen); from the Ancient Greek ζεῦγμα, zeûgma, lit. "a yoking together"[1]) and syllepsis (/sɪˈlɛpsɪs/; from the Ancient Greek σύλληψις, sullēpsis, lit. "a taking together"[2]) are figures of speech in which one single phrase or word joins different parts of a sentence.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis
Type 1
Grammatical syllepsis (sometimes also called zeugma): where a single word is used in relation to two other parts of a sentence although the word grammatically or logically applies to only one.[2][4]
By definition, grammatical syllepsis will often be grammatically "incorrect" according to traditional grammatical rules. However, such solecisms are sometimes not errors but intentional constructions in which the rules of grammar are bent by necessity or for stylistic effect.
"He works his work, I mine" (Tennyson, "Ulysses").[5]
It is ungrammatical from a grammarian's viewpoint, because "works" does not grammatically agree with "I": the sentence "I works mine" would be ungrammatical. On the other hand, Tennyson's two sentences could be taken to deploy a different figure of speech, namely "ellipsis". The sentence would be taken to mean,
"He works his work, [and] I [work] mine."
Read in this way, the conjunction is not ungrammatical.
Sometimes the "error" is logical, rather than grammatical:
"They saw lots of thunder and lightning."[6]
Logically, they "saw" only the lightning.
Type 2
Zeugma (often also called syllepsis, or semantic syllepsis): a single word is used with two other parts of a sentence but must be understood differently in relation to each.[7][8][9][10] Example: "He took his hat and his leave." The type of figure is grammatically correct but creates its effect by seeming, at first hearing, to be incorrect by its exploiting multiple shades of meaning in a single word or phrase.
"Here Thou, great Anna! whom three Realms obey,
Dost sometimes Counsel take – and sometimes Tea." (Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock, Canto III)[11][12]
"Miss Bolo […] went straight home, in a flood of tears and a sedan-chair." (Charles Dickens, The Pickwick Papers, Chapter 35)[13]
"When he asked "What in heaven?" she made no reply, up her mind, and a dash for the door." (Flanders and Swann, "Have Some Madeira M'Dear")[14]
"They covered themselves with dust and glory." (Mark Twain)[15]
"As you can see, we can't." (show hosts referring to their blindfolds and addressing the audience) (Rhett & Link), "Good Mythical Morning"
When the meaning of a verb varies for the nouns following it, there is a standard order for the nouns: the noun first takes the most prototypical or literal meaning of the verb and is followed by the noun or nouns taking the less prototypical or more figurative verb meanings.[16]
"The boy swallowed milk and kisses," as opposed to "The boy swallowed kisses and milk".[16]
Type 3
The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms offers a much broader definition for zeugma by defining it as any case of parallelism and ellipsis working together so that a single word governs two or more other parts of a sentence.[17]
Vicit pudorem libido timorem audacia rationem amentia. (Cicero, Pro Cluentio, VI.15)
"Lust conquered shame; audacity, fear; madness, reason."
The more usual way of phrasing this would be "Lust conquered shame, audacity conquered fear, and madness conquered reason." The sentence consists of three parallel clauses, called parallel because each has the same word order: subject, verb, object. The verb "conquered" is a common element in each clause. The zeugma is created by removing the second and third instances of "conquered". Removing words that still can be understood by the context of the remaining words is ellipsis.
Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend. (Francis Bacon[18]).
The more usual way of phrasing this would be "Histories make men wise, poets make them witty, the mathematics make them subtle, natural philosophy makes them deep, moral [philosophy] makes them grave, and logic and rhetoric make them able to contend."
Zeugmas are defined in this sense in Samuel Johnson's 18th-century A Dictionary of the English Language.[19]
Type 4
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.[3] Then, it is not necessary for the governing phrase to relate to two other parts of the sentence. One example, from the song "What's My Name?", is: "Okay, there we go / Only thing we have on is the radio." Another example is in an advertisement for a transport company: "We go a long way for you." This type of syllepsis is similar to a homonymic pun.
Other types and related figures
There are several other definitions of zeugma that encompass other ways in which one word in a sentence can relate to two or more others. Even a simple construction like "this is easy and comprehensible" has been called[3] a "zeugma without complication" because "is" governs both "easy" and "comprehensible".
Specialized figures have been defined to distinguish zeugmas with particular characteristics such as the following figures, which relate to the specific type and location of the governing word:
Diazeugma
A diazeugma[20] is a zeugma whose only subject governs multiple verbs. A diazeugma whose only subject begins the sentence and controls a series of verbs is a "disjunction" (disiunctio) in the Rhetorica ad Herennium.[21]
Populus Romanus Numantiam delevit Kartaginem sustulit Corinthum disiecit Fregellas evertit. (Anon. Rhetorica ad Herennium. IV. xxvii.[21])
The Roman people destroyed Numantia, razed Carthage, demolished Corinth, and overthrew Fregellae.
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." (Inaugural address of John F. Kennedy)
Hypozeugma
Hypozeugma[22] or "adjunctions" (adiunctio)[23] is used in a construction containing several phrases and occurs when the word or words on which all of the phrases depend are placed at the end.
Assure yourself that Damon to his Pythias, Pylades to his Orestes, Titus to his Gysippus, Theseus to his Pyrothus, Scipio to his Laelius, was never found more faithful than Euphues will be to his Philautus. (John Lyly, Euphues)[24]
Prozeugma
A prozeugma,[25] synezeugmenon, or praeiunctio is a zeugma whose governing word occurs in the first clause of the sentence.[24]
Vicit pudorem libido timorem audacia rationem amentia. (Cicero, Pro Cluentio, VI.15)
"Lust conquered shame; audacity, fear; madness, reason."
Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtile; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend. (Francis Bacon[18]).
Mesozeugma
A mesozeugma[26] is a zeugma whose governing word occurs in the middle of the sentence and governs clauses on either side. A mesozeugma whose common term is a verb is called "conjunction" (coniunctio) in the Roman Rhetorica ad Herennium.[21]
"What a shame is this, that neither hope of reward, nor feare of reproch could any thing move him, neither the persuasion of his friends, nor the love of his country. [sic]" (Henry Peacham)
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypozeuxis
Hypozeuxis is a rhetorical term for an expression or sentence where every clause has its own independent subject and predicate.[1] If the same words are repeated in each clause, it is also an example of anaphora.
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills." (Winston Churchill)
The opposite of hypozeuxis is hyperzeuxis, which may also be a form of zeugma or syllepsis.
"we have everything"
wwg1wga
Polysyndeton comes from the Ancient Greek πολύ poly, meaning "many", and συνδετόν syndeton, meaning "bound together with".[1] A stylistic scheme, polysyndeton is the deliberate insertion of conjunctions into a sentence for the purpose of “slow[ing] up the rhythm of the prose” so as to produce “an impressively solemn note.” [2]
In grammar, a polysyndetic coordination is a coordination in which all conjuncts are linked by coordinating conjunctions (usually and, but, or, nor in English).
נחיה ונראה," אמר העיוור למת
"Да будет свет!" сказал монтёр и перерезал провода.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraprosdokian
"stroke frump"
"Paraprosdokian" comes from the Greek "παρά", meaning "against" and "προσδοκία", meaning "expectation". The term "prosdokia" ("expectation") occurs with the preposition "para" in Greek rhetorical writers of the 1st century BCE and the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, with the meaning "contrary to expectation" or "unexpectedly."[2][3][4][5] These four sources are cited under "prosdokia" in Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek Lexicon.[6] Canadian linguist and etymology author William Gordon Casselman argues that, while the word is now in wide circulation, "paraprosdokian" (or "paraprosdokia") is not a term of classical (or medieval) Greek or Latin rhetoric, but a late 20th-century neologism, citing the fact that the word does not yet appear in the Oxford English Dictionary as evidence of its late coinage.[7][8] However, the word appeared in print as early as 1891 in a humorous article in Punch.[9]
Examples
"Take my wife—please!" —Henny Youngman[10]
"There but for the grace of God—goes God." —Winston Churchill[1]
"If I could just say a few words… I'd be a better public speaker." —Homer Simpson[11]
"If I am reading this graph correctly—I'd be very surprised." —Stephen Colbert[12]
"On his feet he wore…blisters." —Aristotle[13]
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." —Groucho Marx[14]
"A modest man, who has much to be modest about." —Winston Churchill[14]
"I like going to the park and watching the children run around because they don't know I'm using blanks." —Emo Philips[14]
"I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long." —Mitch Hedberg[8][15]
"I sleep eight hours a day and at least ten at night." —Bill Hicks[8]
"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." —Will Rogers[16]
"On the other hand, you have different fingers." —Steven Wright[10]
"He was at his best when the going was good." —Alistair Cooke[1]
A garden-path sentence is a grammatically correct sentence that starts in such a way that a reader's most likely interpretation will be incorrect; the reader is lured into a parse that turns out to be a dead end or yields a clearly unintended meaning. "Garden path" refers to the saying "to be led down [or up] the garden path", meaning to be deceived, tricked, or seduced.
Such a sentence leads the reader toward a seemingly familiar meaning that is actually not the one intended. It is a special type of sentence that creates a momentarily ambiguous interpretation because it contains a word or phrase that can be interpreted in multiple ways, causing the reader to begin to believe that a phrase will mean one thing when in reality it means something else. When read, the sentence seems ungrammatical, makes almost no sense, and often requires rereading so that its meaning may be fully understood after careful parsing.
Semanitics are neither truthfull nor fabulous
Syntactic ambiguity, also called amphiboly or amphibology, is a situation where a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure.
Syntactic ambiguity arises not from the range of meanings of single words, but from the relationship between the words and clauses of a sentence, and the sentence structure underlying the word order therein. In other words, a sentence is syntactically ambiguous when a reader or listener can reasonably interpret one sentence as having more than one possible structure.
In legal disputes, courts may be asked to interpret the meaning of syntactic ambiguities in statutes or contracts. In some instances, arguments asserting highly unlikely interpretations have been deemed frivolous.[citation needed] A set of possible parse trees for an ambiguous sentence is called a parse forest.[1][2] The process of resolving syntactic ambiguity is called syntactic disambiguation.[3]
The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose. — Henry VI (1.4.30), by William Shakespeare
Amphiboly occurs frequently in poetry, sometimes owing to the alteration of the natural order of words for metrical reasons. The sentence could be taken to mean that Henry will depose the duke, or that the duke will depose Henry.
Eduardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. — Edward II by Christopher Marlowe
According to legend, Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March famously plotted to murder Edward II of England in such a way as not to draw blame on themselves, sending a famous order in Latin which, depending on where the comma was inserted, could mean either "Do not be afraid to kill Edward; it is good" or "Do not kill Edward; it is good to fear":
I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola. — Lola by Ray Davies
Can mean "Lola and I are both glad I'm a man", or "I'm glad Lola and I are both men", or "I'm glad I'm a man, and Lola is also glad to be a man". Ray Davies deliberately wrote this ambiguity into the song, referring to a cross-dresser.
John saw the man on the mountain with a telescope.
Who is on the mountain? John, the man, or both? Who has the telescope? John, the man, or the mountain?
The word of the Lord came to Zechariah, son of Berekiah, son of Iddo, the prophet.
Is the prophet Zechariah, Berekiah, or Iddo?
Aristotle writes about an influence of ambiguities on arguments and also about an influence of ambiguities depending on either combination or division of words:
… if one combines the words 'to write-while-not-writing': for then it means, that he has the power to write and not to write at once; whereas if one does not combine them, it means that when he is not writing he has the power to write.
— Aristotle, Sophistical refutations, Book I, Part 4
Syntactic and semantic ambiguity
Further information: Polysemy
In syntactic ambiguity, the same sequence of words is interpreted as having different syntactic structures. In contrast, in semantic ambiguity the structure remains the same, but the individual words are interpreted differently.[12][13]
Kantean
Immanuel Kant employs the term "amphiboly" in a sense of his own, as he has done in the case of other philosophical words. He denotes by it a confusion of the notions of the pure understanding with the perceptions of experience, and a consequent ascription to the latter of what belongs only to the former.[14]
Ibis redibis nunquam per bella peribis (alternatively Ibis redibis nunquam in bello morieris) is a Latin phrase, often used to illustrate the meaning of syntactic ambiguity to students of either Latin or linguistics. Traditionally, it is attributed to the oracles of Dodona. The phrase is thought to have been uttered to a general consulting the oracle about his fate in an upcoming battle. The sentence is crafted in a way that without punctuation, it can be interpreted in two significantly different ways.[1][2]
Classical rhetoricians classified figures of speech into four categories or quadripartita ratio:[2]
addition (adiectio), also called repetition/expansion/superabundance
omission (detractio), also called subtraction/abridgement/lack
transposition (transmutatio), also called transferring
permutation (immutatio), also called switching/interchange/substitution/transmutation
These categories are often still used. The earliest known text listing them, though not explicitly as a system, is the Rhetorica ad Herennium, of unknown authorship, where they are called πλεονασμός (addition), ἔνδεια (omission), μετάθεσις (transposition) and ἐναλλαγή (permutation).[3] Quintillian then mentioned them in Institutio Oratoria.[4] Philo of Alexandria also listed them as addition (πρόσθεσις), subtraction (ἀφαίρεσις), transposition (μετάθεσις), and transmutation (ἀλλοίωσις).[5]
Ibis, redibis, nunquam per bella peribis.
Meaning "you will go, you will return, never in war will you perish". The other possibility is the exact opposite in meaning:
Ibis, redibis nunquam, per bella peribis.
That is: "you will go, you will never return, in (the) war you will perish".
Greek parallel
A Greek parallel expression with the same meaning is also current: ἤξεις ἀφήξεις, οὐ θνήξεις ἐν πολέμῳ. While Greek authorities have in the past assumed this was the original Dodona oracle (e.g. first edition of Babiniotis dictionary), no ancient instance of the expression is attested, and a future form corresponding to the rhyming θνήξεις (instead of the classical θανεῖ) is first attested from the reign of Nero (Greek Anthology 9.354). The Greek expression is therefore likeliest a modern back-translation from the Latin.[3]
Contemporary usage
To say that something is an ibis redibis, usually in the context of legal documents, is to say that its wording is (either deliberately or accidentally) confusing or ambiguous.
Dodona (/doʊˈdoʊnə/; Doric Greek: Δωδώνα, Dōdṓna, Ionic and Attic Greek: Δωδώνη,[1] Dōdṓnē) in Epirus in northwestern Greece was the oldest Hellenic oracle, possibly dating to the second millennium BCE according to Herodotus. The earliest accounts in Homer describe Dodona as an oracle of Zeus. Situated in a remote region away from the main Greek poleis, it was considered second only to the oracle of Delphi in prestige.
Aristotle considered the region around Dodona to have been part of Hellas and the region where the Hellenes originated.[2] The oracle was first under the control of the Thesprotians before it passed into the hands of the Molossians.[3] It remained an important religious sanctuary until the rise of Christianity during the Late Roman era
next time we can try tail to tail to see how close they can get without touching