Talk:Laconic phrase

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: Only one example has a citation. All these examples need citations from verifiable sources.--ZayZayEM 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I agree with the merging. My Famous Example is copy-pasted from the source, so it shall replace the "blot out the sun" (which may be given as a popular later variant).David Latapie (✒ | @) 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: I think there are far too many examples on this page, most of which are not really Laconic. They ought to express an idea or a more complicated thought with very few words. 'Nuts' means nothing more than that, and implies nothing more than that.
Conversely, the Philip II example efficiently conveys an opinion and attitude with one word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.194.156 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. See wikt:nuts#Interjection. DCDuring (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: In the Philip II case, the brevity is achieved by referring back to the preceding threatening statement, a device that is not characteristic of Laconic phrases in general. While it may represent an extreme example, it's not a very representative one. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: What would that achieve? --Scottie_theNerd 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not everything the Spartans said was "Laconic", like the poster above mentioned.--SkiDragon (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And not every laconic phrase was from the Spartans. This article is about the concept of "laconic phrases", not "Spartan phrases". I presume you were referring to the anonymous editor 129.97; in which case he or she did not specify anything about Spartans, only that most of the phrases in the current list are not considered "laconic" based on definition. The purpose in cleaning up the article is to remove items which do not belong, not change the article to cover a different topic. --Scottie_theNerd 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was being sarcastic; much of the article reads like 300-fanboy nonsense. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The Spartans peculiar culture makes many of their proudest expressions primarily examples of bravado and asceticism rather than terseness and wit. The meaning of wikt:Laconism has drifted from the classical sense which included those other Spartan attributes to something that now is something more like "terse witticism". DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Not a bad article, and certainly a relevant one, but painful to read.  The reader is drowned in gratuitous information.  If you feel up to it you'd make me eternally grateful. Maikel (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is gratuitous only if you don't want to understand the context of the examples, and in that case you're probably not very interested in the subject to begin with. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Please rewrite

message: Is it just me, or does viking, and by extension nordic, culture have an equivalent? I just can't remember the name of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.89.250 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Viking equivalent?

message: TCO (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut! 

message: The page on Laconic terseness is decidedly lacking it.  The Cap'n (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but to suggest that an article on Laconic terseness should embody the same quality itself is nonsensical. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: That's a pun, which is why that example is listed under bilingual puns. I removed it from the list of non-Spartan examples of a Laconic phrase for that reason. Even though it is short, I would not view it as a good example of Laconic speech (the Spartans weren't known for punning). WolfmanSF (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Lengthy Examples 

message: What does everyone think about adding some examples in media (literature, TV, film, etc.), including fiction or non-fiction? An example that comes to mind is the TV series Spartacus. I am not sure if this is strictly laconic in style (?). Do statements like the following fit the laconic style addressed in this article?: "When has son denied father?" / "Man of ambition is capable of anything." / "I will not die faceless slave forgotten by history." / "This is but glorious beginning." (see: this article for more background) --Thorwald (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding examples from fiction is that there are innumerable possible choices, and few if any of them stand out as being especially noteworthy. The article has already been described as "drowning in examples" as it is. It's probably better if we stick to history. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples in media

message: I feel that it is very inappropriate not to have the corresponding Greek phrase for each English translation in an article entitled "Laconic phrase". I would suggest that all examples that are not derived from Greek phrases be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.122.90 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should remove them, I think we should add the Greek (or Latin, for those that only survive in Latin sources). --Nbauman (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek script 

message: Here are several translations, with links, of Gorgo's reply to the question of why only Spartan women can rule men: 
*From the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1931 Being asked by a woman from Attica, "Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord it over your men," she said, "Because we are the only women that are mothers of men."
*From the Poetry Foundation Asked by a woman from Attica, “Why is it you Spartan women are the only ones who govern men?” she replied, “We’re the only ones who give birth to them.”
*From AncientGreekBattles.net When asked by a woman from Attica: 'Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?', she said: 'Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men.'
There are various other translations, but the point is that the position of women in Spartan society was much more equal than elsewhere in Ancient Greece. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorgo's comment on why only Spartan women can rule men 

message: The list of quotes in the article seems excessively long. In addition, the sources for the non-Spartan examples are reliable sources for the quotes being accurate, but do not seem to back up the claim that they are "laconic phrases". (Not to mention the fact that almost all the Spartan examples are sourced to Plutarch, which makes their justifications as laconic overly reliant on one source.) In general, the list seems somewhat indiscriminate in that it seems to lack clear criteria for what makes them "laconic phrases". --V2Blast (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Plutarch is in fact the main source we have for Spartan quotes, so being "overly reliant" on him is unavoidable, unless we're going to have a very short list of examples. As to whether the list is "excessively long", that is a judgement call based in part on one's level of interest in the subject. Given that we've had over 160,000 page views in the last 6 months, I'd say the general level of interest is high. The only criterion for inclusion is being a notable or interesting example of a laconic phrase, based on the definition of "laconic". Realistically, there are not a lot of sources out there that state, "This is a non-Spartan example of a laconic phrase." One might argue with the inclusion of some of the non-Spartan examples, but rather than reduce the list to one that is based on the judgement of one or a few editors, I've tried to allow a diverse set of contributors to participate. However, if there are particular examples you object to, or if you have suggestions for better examples, please let us know. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly long list of quotes 

message: The lead currently defines a laconic phrase as "a concise or terse statement". Though brevity is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient. For example, telegraphic brevity ("Sighted sub, sank same"), punning ("Peccavi"), and concise mottos ("La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas") don't sound laconic to me. Here is what some reliable sources say:
* "A person or thing is laconic that is characterized by such succinctness as to seem curt, brusque, unperturbed, or mystifying" (synonym group: terse, succinct, summary, pithy, compendious) -- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms 
* "which is concise or sententious, dry and sarcastic" -- Simon Kerl, Elements of Composition and Rhetoric (1869) 
* (contrasting with conciseness) "...Laconic expresses an affected conciseness, which springs not from desire to do justice to the expression, but from some peculiarity or sentiment of the speaker, who wishes to avoid the smallest waste of words upon the subject or the person addressed. Conciseness is a proof of regard, laconism of disregard. So that it is associated not only with brevity but with bluntness...." -- Henry Percy Smith, Synonyms Discriminated (1904) 
What these definitions have in common is a sense of bluntness, insolence, or sarcasm.
Another element seems to be ellipsis or indirectness:
* "The Laconic style...admits the frequent use of ellipsis" A. Layres, Belles-Lettres (1867)  
The closest modern word would be "snarky". Just think of Lycurgus's "So that we may always have something to offer." He realizes that small sacrifices seem cheap, but he pretends that he is thinking of the future, and also implicitly saying that his interlocuter's city is living beyond its means by offering lavish sacrifices.
Note also that most (though not all) of the 'classic' examples of laconic phrases are rejoinders to questions.
Now it is certainly true that the word is often used more loosely, but this is an encyclopedia article talking about the concept, not a dictionary article talking about usage. I'll make some edits to the article and look forward to other editors' comments. --Macrakis (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that punning was not characteristic of the Spartans. However, when I removed the example in question, it reappeared so frequently that I gave up trying to eliminate it. While bluntness is a basic feature of laconic remarks, sarcasm (mocking someone by saying the opposite of what you mean) is not; it is completely absent in the Spartan examples. I would say that the quality of "pithiness" is also important, at least in the actual Spartan examples, and this quality is not captured by "snarky". WolfmanSF (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting we use the word "snarky" in the article, but a common feature of the classic laconic phrases is what Smith summarizes as "Conciseness is a proof of regard, laconism of disregard", that is, disrespect for the questioner. Agreed about sarcasm. Pithiness is certainly important. How would you capture that beyond my current suggested language "a concise or terse statement, especially a blunt and elliptical rejoinder"? "If", for example, is certainly terse (one word!), blunt and disrespectful (Philip, you think you can invade Laconia?), and elliptical. --Macrakis (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "blunt" does suggest some degree of disregard (it certainly does't imply politeness), so that may be enough in the intro. The second sentence can perhaps be modified to mention "pithy" and to have "sarcastic" removed. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I presume the military radio/telegraphic examples were added because of the parallel to the Spartan example from the battle of Cyzicus. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The essence of laconism

message: Section currently reads:
:A laconic phrase may be used for efficiency (as in military jargon), for philosophical reasons (especially among thinkers who believe in minimalism, such as Stoics), or for better disarming a long, pompous speech (the most famous example being at the Battle of Thermopylae).
The first two seem to be talking about concision, not laconicity. They are missing the core defiance expressed by a laconic remark. Laconic remarks in a military context (molon lave, "if") are not efficient, but defiant. This section needs to be completely reworked. --Macrakis (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how central "defiance" really is in laconic speech; that only comes into play when someone is interacting with a rival of some sort, and such examples may be selectively recorded and repeated. However, this is absent from many of the examples recorded by Plutarch. "Disrespect" comes closer to being a core feature but is not always present. Also, I think the first part of the section has some validity; Spartans' blunt speed was the product of a very militarized society. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

text: This is in reference to the "Molon labe" example, and you are correct in pointing out that Xerxes himself did not make a "long and pompous speech" at the scene (although his negotiators may have done so), as he was not present, so this section should be revised. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses

message: Before complaining about the number of examples, one should remember that the Spartan quotations handed down to us through history represent the sole origin of the term "laconic". If you're not interested in these examples, you're not interested in the subject. Whether the non-Spartan examples are essential may be debated, but based on contributions to the article, there is clear interest in having them there. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaining about number of examples 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laconic phrase. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218081550/http://e-classics.com/index.html to http://www.e-classics.com/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I hesitate to add this myself when there's concern about excessive examples, but if we wanted a particularly recent one (more so than the Korean War), there's a good one in this article:
:When one Twitter user called Scott a "house n----" last year, after his vote to confirm Sessions, he tweeted back a one-word reply: "Senate."
--BDD (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best we avoid all examples from social media, since there are such a huge number of such examples possible; to add one would probably be opening a can of worms. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent example 

message: Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry because it doesn't look like a thorough discussion has taken place (yet). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: This is a followup on discussion with User:WolfmanSF about my reasoning in removing the sister links to wikitionary and wikidata from the Laconic phrase article.  It turns out that I misspoke in my edit comment--even though these links appear in the "See also" section, they're covered by WP:SISTER, not WP:EL; but the guideline is similar: it says that sister page links are encouraged when such links are likely to be useful to our readers. I would argue that the definition isn't useful because it covers information already in the lead paragraph of the article, and the wikidata entry is only useful to expert editors, not typical users.
Now, having explained my reasoning, I'm fine with the current state of the article.  My main concern was increasing visibility for the wikiquote link, and this has been achieved by removing it from the sister links box.  Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perspective, the Wiktionary definition corroborates some of the content of the article, and expert editors deserve consideration, so both links have some value. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to sister sites 

message: Given the endless list of possible modern examples, I suggest we not add them to this article. A better alternative would be to add them to . WolfmanSF (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern examples 

message: I've used a 1939 translation of Philip's famous threat as recorded by Plutarch. It might be unfamiliar because it isn't easy to translate into English. Sometimes you'll see "I will turn you out" or suchlike, sometimes it's more like "I will lay waste to your country" and really, both are good. The word ἀναστάτους means uprooted/exiled/driven out when used of people, and ruined/devastated/laid waste when used of a place, so when he says "I will make you ἀναστάτους" he might well be talking of the people and the place too. NebY (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on translation