Talk:Catachresis

message: I think this is more an example of definitions shifting over time than of a deliberate out-of-context use of the word "nimrod". I've added examples for two of the senses from Shakespeare. The other two remain as yet unexampled... --Ptomato 02:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: on the front page it mentions our mutual friend" for "our friend in common" as incorrect usage. I believe this is correct usage, mutual friend means friend in common .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.57.135 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing 'our mutual friend' from the intro, since it turns out that 58% of the most recent usage panel I could find (2006) support the usage as correct. Further, it was already in fairly common use that way in Dickens' time, which means that the usage has a good 200 years of history behind it by now "which ought to be enough for anybody!". It would be like complaining that 'nice' is REALLY supposed to mean 'stupid' (which it did several hundred years ago), so everyone who uses it as a compliment is committing (a?) catachresis.  (Amusingly, the spellchecker is now complaining about 'catachresis'.) --Arvedui (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect usage ? 

message: To take arms against a sea of troubles is likely a deliberate catachresis, or perhaps not even one at all: Hamlet is talking about futility. Faced with a sea of troubles, taking up a sword and shield is not going to have an effect on the wave that's about to hit you, and the character knows this. It's a straightforward metaphor (not even a mixed metaphor) disguised as a catachresis, I feel. UrbaneLegend 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the full quote is 'To take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them'. Hence Hamlet is of the opinion that taking up arms will, in fact, have an effect on the sea of troubles, illogical as this is. I think this is a very good example for this page, though the mixed metaphor has a deeper meaning. Certainly we are to understand that suicide is as peculiar a way of dealing with problems as attacking the sea with a sword would be; but nonetheless Hamlet wishes us to believe that it would be an effective technique, even if the modalities are, by use of a mixed metaphor, deliberately obscured. In this sense it is an unsatisfactory metaphor, and is better considered as catachresis. Happydemic 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's an issue with having the disclaimer after the quotation.  If the Hamlet quotation is indeed to be regarded as a good example of catachresis then the disclaimer explaining why it might not should be removed.  If it is a bad example it should be replaced with another example entirely.  What are people's thoughts on this? 78.33.70.38 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Additional - I actually like the Zapp Brannigan quote that has been suggested on this talk page - I think it is a perfect example of a mixed metaphor. 78.33.70.38 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hamlet quotation 

message: I think its ironic that ClueBot rejected my edit of an example of Catachresis using a homophone of the term.  I would be honored to have my quote next to Shakespeare.  "Don't get your panties in a cat of creases." -Sir Mixed Metaphor  Dennynorth (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony and ironic 

message: Doesn't the article imply that Shakespeare is misusing language? Rintrah 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare 

message: One frequently encounters misuse of superlatives, e.g., "most unique", "fairly unique", "sort of dead", etc.  Shouldn't at least one of these be included in the article as an example of catachresis? —QuicksilverT @ 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superlatives 

message: The word is derived from the Ancient Greek verb καταχρμαι (Modern Greek: καταχρώμαι - commonly misspelled as καταχράζομαι), which means to use something in excess; derivative uses also mean "abuse," "overdose" or "overindulgence" (for example, κατάχρηση ναρκωτικών ουσιών means "drug abuse"), etc.
While it is possible to use the word to refer to improper use of the word (as overuse can lead to misuse), it does not mean that.  RaspK FOG 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal meaning of the word catachresis (Ancient Greek: κατάχρησις; Modern Greek: κατάχρηση) 

message: In his book "Usage and Abusage" Eric Partridge says of catachresis thta the roiginal Greek word translatees roughly as contrary to usage-ness which ssms quite appositer. It covers such foolishness as using comparatives with absolutes: e.g.: "almost unique" - which is clearly absurd - it's either unique or it isn't! 81.102.15.200 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Partridge's way of putting it 

message: The current phrasing of the article is either non-NPOV or too focused on one
meaning. Looking at the "Penguin" definition, the Wiktionary entry, and the
usuage I am acquainted with, its main meaning is a mistaken use (as opposed
to e.g. deliberately playing with or extending of language). Most occurences
would then be detrimental and should be avoided. (Consider e.g. the common
modern use "literally" to mean more or less the opposite of its true meaning:
"He literally flew down the run-way.")
The claim
 Catachresis is a very common habit, and it is crucial in the evolution of a
 language, as it helps to overcome the lexical poverty of a language.
in particular, is misleading (while perfectly true), because it puts the focus
exclusively on the positive effects, and overlooks the many negative effects.
These include unnecessary drifts in meaning, one word replacing another in
meaning, people from different generations using words differently, etc.
Ironically, it can be argued that this article uses "catachresis" in a manner
that amounts to---catachresis.
I will wait roughly one week and, barring convincing arguments to the contrary,
then re-write the article to be more balanced.
88.77.134.12 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article unbalanced 

message: Although I see what 88.77.128.233 was trying to do, his/her edit stinks of Original Research.  There are no references or supporting proofs for the additions.  This will also need to be rewritten.  Jubilee♫clipman 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NOR

message: Why is there an entire section here devoted to Calvin Warren's Ontological Terror Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation (2018)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.78 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I tried to shift the emphasis without losing the information by making a more general section title.  2001:171B:2274:7C21:7477:5625:3765:DCB7 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Section