Talk:Paraprosdokian

message: Perhaps a comment stating that the punctuation of the second example is part of the humor is needed--I didn't consider the possiblity until it was mentioned, so others could miss it. Though it could just be me. Shilasu 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: Even the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't contain this word, so can anyone give a reference for it? Otherwise, why should I believe it's not a made-up word?
:It's a classical term - see, for example:
:* p. 218, Classical Philology > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1940)
:* p. 315, The American Journal of Philology > Vol. 86, No. 3 (Jul., 1965)
:* p. 322, The American Journal of Philology > Vol. 77, No. 3 (1956)
:I got these off JSTOR, though unless you're connected to a university somehow, you're unlikely to be able to get access. An example of more recent use can be seen as the penultimate entry on the second page of a google search for the term. Note the URL: muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_ journal_of_philology/v123/123.2biles.pdf - v. 123 of the journal is from 2002.
:As the word is often written in italics in the above sources, I suspect that it is merely a transliteration of the Greek (hence not in the OED), which would be something like: παραπρωσδοχιαν :) Sorry, I might as well use my Greek GCSE for something.... Soobrickay 02:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm told that it's a phrase - "παρά προσδοκίαν" - "against expectation." 24.159.255.29 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for this word?

message: # "I type at one hundred and one words a minute. But it's in my own language." — Mitch Hedberg
# "I know a lot about cars. I can look at a car's headlights and tell you exactly which way it's coming." — Mitch Hedberg
# "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried." — Winston Churchill [8]
# "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." — Winston Churchill
# "[I weigh] 145 pounds, naked. That is, if that scale outside the drugstore is anything to go by." — Emo Philips[9]
# "My parents threw quite the going-away party for me... according to the letter." — Emo Philips
Should those be deleted from the article? I don't think they quite fit the definition - especially the first one. The punchline didn't cause me to reframe the first part of the sentence at all. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see I wasn't the only one feeling that some cleanup is needed. I think both of the Churchill quotes should stay, but I'm going to remove those others, and a couple more as well. Cgingold (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you're right about the Churchill quotes. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreeing with Dbutler1986, that the examples they cited should be deleted. I deleted the Churchill quote -- there's no change in meaning caused during the last part of the sentence. I also deleted two more, which didn't cause me...as far as I know...lol...to "rethink" the earlier part of the sentence. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, sadly, is this one: "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."  It is incongruity between the two "flies" which creates the humour, not the reframing of the first part of the sentence; the first time you hear this, you probably reframe the second part of the sentence.  I disagree about removing "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing...", as the second part of the sentence turns this into a complete contradiction. cojoco (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also happen to agree that "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing..." quote should stay, it does force you to rethink the first part of the sentence, because it changes in meaning. The first part indicates that Americans will do what is right when expected, though the second says that they won't, and turns the indication into a part of humour (or whatever Churchill meant by that quote, I found it funny), the turning, in itself, is rethinking. --86.29.49.173 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: I wonder if it might be informative to include a selection of "near misses", in a kind of "exception proves the rule" kind of a way? cojoco (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near misses? 

message: I was pretty sure the line "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it" was attributed to Steven Wright, not Jack Handey. Can anyone prove which of the two this quote is currectly attributed to?--Maceo (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was Handey. Doesn't strike me as very like Wright's style. Ceoil (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should not be included. I disagree that it is a paraprosdokian. And it couldn't be included, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else believe, unless a reliable source said it was a paraprosdokian. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: there are a lot of examples listed but people always fight about them. i think they all count as original research any way so shouldnt they all be removed?? Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your taking the definition of OR a bit too far there. Outright mass deletion is just, well I dont know. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i still think the tag should be there. i dont think youre supposed to remove tags without a good justification. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, just done! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: yay thanks! Aisha9152 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: Hi. I do understand the desire to prevent the long list of examples from growing further. However, I do believe Wendy Liebman is a notable comic, who has made an entire career out of this type of construction. I can only find a single blog reference that calls her material paraprosdokian (first at ), but there is a wealth of video footage (eg) that citable quotes could be drawn from. Her site has reviews that describe her M.O. eg "She's a master of a throwaway line, of making a perfectly rational observation, then adding, almost subliminally, the punch line, which skews everything she has said before."LA Times
I'm not requesting immediate replacement in the article, but just wanted to place these notes here, until they become usable. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wendy Liebman 

message: "Have you ever tried just sitting down with your children, turning the TV off, and hitting them."  I believe this was actually said by Bender B. Rodriguez in Futurama, Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV — not Homer Simpson as is currently stated.  Also, the quote should probably end with a question mark. I'd change it myself, but the attribution seems to cite something and I don't have time to check that out.  99.177.172.109 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I double checked the source, and the article reflects it. Do you have an alternate source? I wouldn't doubt that Bender also said it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

text: As Nuujinn is saying, we go by what the reliable sources say. There's a citation for the attribution to Homer Simpson. If that's wrong, then it shouldn't be hard to find a different citation. I imagine the article we cite (from The Journal of Medical Speech) is using as its source Heinrichs, J. (2007). Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion. New York: Three Rivers Press. Anyone have access to a copy? -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: have you tried googling the quote? there are not a lot of results which is surprising. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who's aware of this but both cartoon's are Groening's work, so my bet is the joke got recycled. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: There are quite a lot of hits if you replace "just" with "simply": "Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?" --Boson (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misattribution of an example 

message: "Have you ever tried just sitting down with your children, turning the TV off, and hitting them."
That isn't from Homer Simpson. It's from Bender, in the Futurama episode Bender Should Not Be Allowed on Television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.184.211 (talk) 
:Got a source? We follow sources, and don't worry about the truth. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: if you google the episode transcript its there though not the best source. maybe we should just remove that one entry it wont hurt anything. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to that notion, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ok i did it it was more trouble than its worth Aisha9152 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquoted by source 

message: Does this have a relation to mind rhymes?  —141.153.215.89 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind rhymes? 

message: I don't think that Bill Casselman, an author of numerous books about words (mostly Canadian words, though :-) is an entirely non-reliable source.  Loggerjack (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent revert 

message: Country music is full of these witty twists. I wanted to add two examples, but was stymied by the article's requirement that some reliable source has to say they are paraprosdokia - even though it is obvious they are. Can they be added? Here are my examples. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Country music

message: Paraprosdokian is the accusative of paraprosdokia in Greek. Should the article be moved in light of this? Even if it doesn't come up very often in English, article names should be in the nominative case. Would anyone object to a move? -Anagogist (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" - Yogi Berra  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.96.228 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example 

message: This is not original with Dangerfield.  It's a version of the ancient joke, "Who was that lady I saw you with last night?"  "That was no lady, that was my wife." Kostaki mou (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The reference link was invalid. I've deleted the example. -- Jmc (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be clear, the link worked but the source was a forum. I agree that we need a better source than some anonymous person posting an opinion on a forum. (And for those who aren't already aware, we need the source to state that the quotation is a paraprosdokian.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, in saying that the reference link was invalid, I was referring both to the fact that it was "some anonymous person posting an opinion on a forum" (i.e. not a RS) and that there was no attribution to Dangerfield. -- Jmc (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the best example of them all is the one by Steven Wright (that is to say, the most paraprosdokian, not necessarily the funniest). The source given mentions Wright but does not directly attribute that quotation to him. Since a simple Google search will associate the quote with him, and that will always be so, there is no need for the source to make that association. If one wanted to go to the trouble of adding a second source, I doubt anyone would complain, but it's not necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even a simple Google search, let alone a RS, attributing the "lady/wife" example to Dangerfield, though. -- Jmc (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, just clarifying what I think are reasonable parameters for inclusion. Totally agree with the Dangerfield removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerfield quote 

message: What is the difference (if any)? --Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's off topic for this page, which is for discussions about improvements to this article, but it would make an excellent question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. This question is exactly about the subject. And comparisons of things do belong to encyclopedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now that you put it that way. I'm not responsible for anything I said prior to 2017. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

text: (In my defense, I was thrown by the fact that it was presented as a question about the topic, not as a suggestion for article improvement. In hindsight I guess I could have read the latter into it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We all quite often take some things too literally. Too bad this page suffers from the lack of eyeballs. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

text: We have to find sources which say this, but the difference is that GPS is a grammatical artifact, while p--kian is a rhetorical figure. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraprosdokian vs. Garden path sentence 

message: Does anyone else think that these are great examples of frequent paraprosdokians? Since the entire premise is to add commentary after an event happens in the film, the viewer is constantly re-interpreting what they just saw in the context of the joke made. 
Currently, only quotes are being used as examples - so I don't think mentioning 'a good source' of paraprosdokians fits with the flow of the article. Could be used for any future expansions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1FC0:2840:301C:BED0:3AEB:5782 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MST3K / Rifftrax 

message: This example ("The funniest film of the year. My girl friend laughed so much she pissed on my finger") is of dubious validity. The article cited mentions it as coming from "a review of the film", without any reference to that review itself. Unless that review can be directly identified as the actual source, I propose to remove the example. -- Jmc (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nemine dissentiente, I've removed the example. -- Jmc (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Cassimally example 

message: Offering food for thought.
# What's the page's primary goal? Surely we want the reader to leave knowing what a paraprosdokian is. Concretely, that means that they can recognize paraprosdokians correctly in the wild, and with equal importance, that they can recognize what is not a paraprosdokian in the wild. In logician-speak they need to understand both what is necessary and what is sufficient: only do we actually understand a definition. That means the presence of any false example on this page does real harm.
# Once this page has given the reader "N" excellent and varied examples of paraprosdokians, then can adding any more examples beyond that really help anything, or could it only hurt? I'd probably set N at 3, but it's perfectly debatable.
# Not everything that is an "X" also makes a great example of an "X".
# Though including an example here requires a reliable reference, excluding an example doesn't require that there be no reference. That is, no matter how many people have written that some phrase is a paraprosdokian, there's no obligation to include it here.
These observations all suggest being conservative: when in doubt, throw it out! If any example is even substantially controversial, it's very likely better to just drop it. IOW, why bother including borderline cases?
Many of the current included quotes are just jokes that a "sudden left turn" to surprising comedic or macabre effect. You're surprised, but you don't have to totally reevaluate what came before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinb9n (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree in principle; less is often more. Practically speaking, about all one can do is (1) remove what you see as excess, (2) revert any future additions you see as excess, and (3) be prepared for the potential conflicts in both cases. For many of those edits, you will have to spend a bit of time seeking a consensus on this page (and possibly deal with editors who don't respect consensus). You will also encounter editors who don't even look at this page, so aren't even aware of an existing consensus and just re-add content that was previously removed under consensus. In my experience, few editors have the time and energy to fight such perpetual battles, particularly at such a low-profile article; I certainly don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't know if you noticed that I moved this thread to the bottom. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta discussion