Talk:Zeugma and syllepsis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: '''Zeugma''' versus '''syllepsis'''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More from Flanders and Swann, "Madeira M'Dear" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  classification example 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Clarification of prozeugma in chiasmus? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hammond and Hughes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question - prozeugma/mesozeugma 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Mesozeugma typo 

message: :*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)
thread_title:  [[Coulrophobia]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misplaced example? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nouns?  Prepositions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More than compounds? 

message: "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)
thread_title: possibly erroneous example

message: 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)
thread_title:  Idioms? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 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)
thread_title: Syllepsis with grammatical disagreement

message: 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)
replies: text: I have implemented most of the above.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Weak Examples 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Errors in the diazeugma section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lazy fact cite tag 

message: 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)
replies: text:  If the best choice is "bad", then the choice must be "none".  --Spannerjam 10:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Information should be Restored 

message: 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)
replies: text: I will go ahead and delete it.UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   It'd be "We must all hang together, or, surely, we shall separately." 2.31.164.0 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Franklin Doesn't Fit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too Much Removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cicero's citation in the "prozeugma" section 

message: "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)
thread_title:  (English proverb) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples to Remove 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question and notable example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Type 4 is double entendre. Delete it?