OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
sense."

Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
knows nothing" - Pascal.

The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?

I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning one
ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go
round).

What do you think?

On 10/09/2022 6:58 am, Hibou wrote:
> OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a
> different sense."
>
> Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all
> hang separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which
> reason knows nothing" - Pascal.
>
> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!"
> contain one?
>
> I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no
> definitive answer. The referents are clearly different (old king,
> new king), but the sense is either the same or different,
> depending on the meaning one ascribes to 'sense' (sense is
> meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go round).
>
> What do you think?

It depends on what you meant. Ask yourself, because only you know.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Le 10/09/2022 à 07:17, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
> On 10/09/2022 6:58 am, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
>> sense."
>>
>> Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
>> separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
>> knows nothing" - Pascal.
>>
>> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain
>> one?
>>
>> I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
>> answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
>> the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning
>> one ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so
>> we go round).
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> It depends on what you meant. Ask yourself, because only you know.

There may be sense in that.

I sometimes follow Lord Goring's lead and listen to myself attentively,
but I don't think I've ever had occasion to say, "The King is dead...."
Two days ago, I wrote, « La reine est morte. Vive le roi ! », but of
course there's no antanaclasis there.

Den 10.09.2022 kl. 07.58 skrev Hibou:

> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?

Are "John" and "John" two different words? Not in my oppinion.

--
Bertel

Le 10/09/2022 à 11:30, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Den 10.09.2022 kl. 07.58 skrev Hibou:
>>
>> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain
>> one?
>
> Are "John" and "John" two different words? Not in my oppinion.
John went to the john.

There once was a johnny who put on a johnny....

A word is repeated with a different sense - but what is the sense of a
word? For 'king' in this case, is it the innate sense, the idea of a
king? Or in the example I'm talking about, is 'king' a shorthand for
'old king' and 'new king' - is it the referent?

Den 10.09.2022 kl. 12.42 skrev Hibou:

> A word is repeated with a different sense - but what is the sense of a
> word? For 'king' in this case, is it the innate sense, the idea of a
> king?

Yes. Every time you use a word, it denotes some specific item or idea.
That doesn't make it a new word.

The mind boggles at the thought of the size of dictionaries, were it
otherwise.

--
Bertel

Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 07:58:50 UTC+2, Hibou a écrit :
> OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
> sense."
>
> Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
> separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
> knows nothing" - Pascal.
>
> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?
>
> I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
> answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
> the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning one
> ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go
> round .

Yes, but in this case, precisely, what matters is not the referent (who the king is),
but the signified (what a king is - i.e. the essence of "sense"), so that the construction
doesn't qualify as an antanaclasis. Compare it to e.g. "The king is dead. Brits are dead
against the idea of not having a new one".

>
> What do you think?

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:49:48 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 07:58:50 UTC+2, Hibou a écrit :
> > OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
> > sense."
> >
> > Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
> > separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
> > knows nothing" - Pascal.
> >
> > The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?
> >
> > I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
> > answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
> > the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning one
> > ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go
> > round .
>
> Yes, but in this case, precisely, what matters is not the referent (who the king is),
> but the signified (what a king is - i.e. the essence of "sense"), so that the construction
> doesn't qualify as an antanaclasis. Compare it to e.g. "The king is dead. Brits are dead
> against the idea of not having a new one".
....

I agree, but is there a rhetorical term for using a word with different referents
and no explicit indication of the switch? It happens accidentally all the time
with pronouns.

--
Jerry Friedman

Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 16:00:15 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:49:48 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 07:58:50 UTC+2, Hibou a écrit :
> > > OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
> > > sense."
> > >
> > > Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
> > > separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
> > > knows nothing" - Pascal.
> > >
> > > The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?
> > >
> > > I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
> > > answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
> > > the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning one
> > > ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go
> > > round .
> >
> > Yes, but in this case, precisely, what matters is not the referent (who the king is),
> > but the signified (what a king is - i.e. the essence of "sense"), so that the construction
> > doesn't qualify as an antanaclasis. Compare it to e.g. "The king is dead. Brits are dead
> > against the idea of not having a new one".
> ...
>
> I agree, but is there a rhetorical term for using a word with different referents
> and no explicit indication of the switch? It happens accidentally all the time
> with pronouns.

Not that I know of. There may well not be one, since the induced confusion is
not intentional and therefore not a rhetorical figure proper. However, as it's often
about wrong syntax, it could be classified as a solecism.

>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Le 10/09/2022 à 15:00, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:49:48 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 07:58:50 UTC+2, Hibou a écrit :
>>>
>>> OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
>>> sense."
>>>
>>> Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
>>> separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
>>> knows nothing" - Pascal.
>>>
>>> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?
>>>
>>> I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
>>> answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
>>> the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning one
>>> ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go
>>> round .
>>
>> Yes, but in this case, precisely, what matters is not the referent (who the king is),
>> but the signified (what a king is - i.e. the essence of "sense"), so that the construction
>> doesn't qualify as an antanaclasis. Compare it to e.g. "The king is dead. Brits are dead
>> against the idea of not having a new one".
> ...
>
> I agree [...]
You may well be right, but to arrive at that conclusion, one has to
interpret the word 'sense' in a particular way - viz the dictionary
sense unmodified by the referent (OED "sense ... 4.b A meaning of a
word, compound, or phrase identified by and recorded in a dictionary").

But 'sense' can have looser meanings, e.g. (OED again) "4.a. ... any of
the various meanings of a word or short phrase; the meaning of a word in
a particular collocation or context."

How do we know which is meant in the definition of 'antanaclasis' (at
the top of this article)? I don't think we do. The definition is unclear.

The original discussion was in French, and in searching I found the
following opinions going the other way:

"Rhetoricians would call this an /antanaclasis/: the same word points to
a different referent, as in the sentence 'the King is dead, long live
the King', in which two different kings are mentioned, as well as two
different statuses of the 'king', as a person and as an institution" -
<https://journals.openedition.org/erea/4696>

« Diaphore ... une figure de rhétorique où l'on répète un mot déjà
employé, en lui donnant une nouvelle nuance de signification ... Le roi
est mort. Vive le roi ! ... Un autre nom de la diaphore est :
antanaclase » -
'Le bon usage de la répétition dans l'expression écrite et orale',
Léandre Sahiri, 2013.

« DIAPHORE ... On répète un mot déjà employé en lui donnant une autre
nuance de signification. ... Autre nom : Antanaclase. ... Le roi est
mort. Vive le roi! » -
<https://www.philo5.com/Textes-references/RhetoriqueDorne_135Definitions_070502.htm>

« ... c'est la figure de l'antanaclase qui répète le même mot, que son
entourage ou son référent rendent différent : "Le Roi est mort, vive le
Roi "...) » -
'Logiques d’une photogénie : San Francisco', Dominique Sipière -
<https://books.openedition.org/pur/30224?lang=en>

I think my conclusion would be that "The King is dead. Long live the
King!" is in the spirit of antanaclasis as a rhetorical tool, even if
its status as such is debatable.

Den 11.09.2022 kl. 07.37 skrev Hibou:

> I think my conclusion would be that "The King is dead. Long live the
> King!" is in the spirit of antanaclasis as a rhetorical tool, even if
> its status as such is debatable.

That is clear from your quotes, but I find that use meaningless.

I went to two shops today, one shop where I bought my new boots,
and another shop where I got a pair of scissors.

Is it really an interesting language property that "shop" has three
'different' meaning in that sentence? I think not. I call it normal
language - the result of us using categories. That's what they are for.

--
Bertel

Le 11/09/2022 à 06:43, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Den 11.09.2022 kl. 07.37 skrev Hibou:
>>
>> I think my conclusion would be that "The King is dead. Long live the
>> King!" is in the spirit of antanaclasis as a rhetorical tool, even if
>> its status as such is debatable.
>
> That is clear from your quotes, but I find that use meaningless.
>
>       I went to two shops today, one shop where I bought my new boots,
>       and another shop where I got a pair of scissors.
>
> Is it really an interesting language property that "shop" has three
> 'different' meaning in that sentence? I think not. I call it normal
> language - the result of us using categories. That's what they are for.

I agree your sentence is uninteresting (I hope that's what you want me
to say). It leads me to suggest that antanaclasis on first hearing needs
a little thought to understand it - an instant of puzzlement followed by
a flash of understanding, as when one hears a new joke. I think that is
true of all of these:

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" -
Franklin.

"The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing" - Pascal.

The King is dead. Long live the King!

Den 11.09.2022 kl. 08.01 skrev Hibou:

> "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" -
> Franklin.

> "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing" - Pascal.

> The King is dead. Long live the King!

The first two are interesting and give meaning to the designation. The
third does not.

--
Bertel

Le 11/09/2022 à 07:01, Hibou a écrit :
>
> [...] It leads me to suggest that antanaclasis on first hearing needs
> a little thought to understand it - an instant of puzzlement followed by
> a flash of understanding, as when one hears a new joke. [...]

And that takes me a step further. I suggest the point of antanaclasis as
a rhetorical tool is the journey by a scenic route from wording to final
understanding. Whether the repeated word has the same or different
dictionary senses is immaterial. 'Sense' in the definition "A figure of
speech involving repetition of a word in a different sense" means the
resolved sense, when the referents are known.

Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 07:37:14 UTC+2, Hibou a écrit :
> Le 10/09/2022 à 15:00, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:49:48 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> >> Le samedi 10 septembre 2022 à 07:58:50 UTC+2, Hibou a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> OED: "A figure of speech involving repetition of a word in a different
> >>> sense."
> >>>
> >>> Examples: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
> >>> separately" - Franklin; "The heart has its reasons, of which reason
> >>> knows nothing" - Pascal.
> >>>
> >>> The question is: does "The King is dead. Long live the King!" contain one?
> >>>
> >>> I'm finding that sources differ, and suspect there is no definitive
> >>> answer. The referents are clearly different (old king, new king), but
> >>> the sense is either the same or different, depending on the meaning one
> >>> ascribes to 'sense' (sense is meaning and meaning is sense, and so we go
> >>> round .
> >>
> >> Yes, but in this case, precisely, what matters is not the referent (who the king is),
> >> but the signified (what a king is - i.e. the essence of "sense"), so that the construction
> >> doesn't qualify as an antanaclasis. Compare it to e.g. "The king is dead. Brits are dead
> >> against the idea of not having a new one".
> > ...
> >
> > I agree [...]
> You may well be right, but to arrive at that conclusion, one has to
> interpret the word 'sense' in a particular way - viz the dictionary
> sense unmodified by the referent (OED "sense ... 4.b A meaning of a
> word, compound, or phrase identified by and recorded in a dictionary").
>
> But 'sense' can have looser meanings, e.g. (OED again) "4.a. ... any of
> the various meanings of a word or short phrase; the meaning of a word in
> a particular collocation or context."
>
> How do we know which is meant in the definition of 'antanaclasis' (at
> the top of this article)? I don't think we do. The definition is unclear.
>
> The original discussion was in French, and in searching I found the
> following opinions going the other way:
>
> "Rhetoricians would call this an /antanaclasis/: the same word points to
> a different referent, as in the sentence 'the King is dead, long live
> the King', in which two different kings are mentioned, as well as two
> different statuses of the 'king', as a person and as an institution" -
> <https://journals.openedition.org/erea/4696>
>
> « Diaphore ... une figure de rhétorique où l'on répète un mot déjà
> employé, en lui donnant une nouvelle nuance de signification ... Le roi
> est mort. Vive le roi ! ... Un autre nom de la diaphore est :
> antanaclase » -
> 'Le bon usage de la répétition dans l'expression écrite et orale',
> Léandre Sahiri, 2013.
>
> « DIAPHORE ... On répète un mot déjà employé en lui donnant une autre
> nuance de signification. ... Autre nom : Antanaclase. ... Le roi est
> mort. Vive le roi! » -
> <https://www.philo5.com/Textes-references/RhetoriqueDorne_135Definitions_070502.htm>
>
> « ... c'est la figure de l'antanaclase qui répète le même mot, que son
> entourage ou son référent rendent différent : "Le Roi est mort, vive le
> Roi "...) » -
> 'Logiques d’une photogénie : San Francisco', Dominique Sipière -
> <https://books.openedition.org/pur/30224?lang=en>
>
> I think my conclusion would be that "The King is dead. Long live the
> King!" is in the spirit of antanaclasis as a rhetorical tool,

Only marginally so, IMO. I'd refer to it as a paradox (in the rhetorical
sense of the word).

> even if
> its status as such is debatable.