Talk:Apophasis

message: I see three nearly identical rhetorical devices:
*Apophasis
*Paralipsis
*Proslepsis
Are these really the same? What are the subtle differences between them that we can bring out? I am linking the pages together in the see alsos and putting references to this talk page in hopes that one of us has more clue than me. Gary 18:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem like exactly the same thing to me, so I propose we merge them. Apophasis beats out the other two in a Google test, even including alternate transliterations (paralipsis/paralepsis/paraleipsis), so let's merge the other two into this one. —Keenan Pepper 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Silva Rhetoricae gives a quite different definition of apophasis, which makes a lot more sense to me. I think I'll change this page to agree with Silva Rhetoricae and put a dablink at the top to Paralipsis. Any objections? —Keenan Pepper 03:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. I'm still not sure which of these terms refer to the same thing, and I want to do some more research, but for now this looks like an improvement. —Keenan Pepper 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apophasis/Paralipsis/Proslepsis

message: I'm slightly puzzled as to what preterition has to do with apophasis; can someone explain what it's doing in there?  Wooster (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't they the same? 68.163.249.49 15:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preterition 

message: Apophasis from the greek roots is saying-away, literally to negate.
Cataphasis from the greek roots is saying-with, literally to affirm.
It is very unlikely that "cataphasis ... is a rhetorical figure of speech wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked."  This could be a meaning of apophasis.  Apophasis and cataphasis are opposites, as seen in the Liddell-Scott Greek lexicon entry.  I would guess that cataphasis should have its own page and not redirect here.
With regards to religion, apophasis is a statement about God by negation, by saying what He is not, used when speaking of the transcendence of God.  Cataphasis is a positive statement about God, by saying what He is, used when speaking of the imminence of God.
Epte 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of cataphasis is quite different from yours. What I see in the definition of cataphasis is that it is explicitly mentioning the negative aspects of the subject through paralipsis. That is, paralipsis is saying something by talking about how you aren't going to say it. Cataphasis is a subset of paralipsis wherein only the negative aspects are mentioned. Aezell (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cataphasis is not synonymous with apophasis 

message: Praeteritio links here but there isn't a section on it, and while the device is proximal to these others it still differs in its use--especially historically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.176.4 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praeteritio 

message: One of the original points in this article, which I have (imprefectly) restored, was the fact that apophasis has fallen into disuse.  Part of the reason for that is the failure to differentiate other related rhetorical devices.  I think it was a mistake to merge these distinct if related terms.  Having done so, however, it is important to discuss the relationships and the distinctions, which has not been done by those who advocated and made the merge.  Edits since my last visit implicitly assert that aphophisis has no independent meaning other than as a superordinate for these other concepts.  That's simply incorrect.  It also has done harm to the understanding of the supposedly subordinate ideas. Economy1 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities and Differences 

message: I think the Occultatio section is lifted right from here: http://www.reference.com/search?q=Occultatio. Would anyone like to clarify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.95.154 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.reference.com/help/about.html —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Here is a section I deleted today. I removed it because it is not readily understandable, and the rest of the article seem to explain the subject "Apophasis" well enough on its own. --Spannerjam 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section 

message: This section introduces an entirely different concept. Apophasis involves mentioning a subject even as you say you're going to avoid it. Using some kind of euphemism or circumlocution to refer to somebody is something else entirely. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There might be something in referring to a person as "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Talked-About", but that isn't what this section is saying. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded and removed. Pdxuser (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion - delete section "With proper names" 

message: The wording around the Cicero quote could lead some people to believe that Clodia was the prosecutor, but I don't think that's the case (not even possible in the Roman legal system). AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cicero quote