Talk:Chiasmus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old

Some view Judeo-Christian religious history as a macro chiasm: "(a)The first shall be (b) last, and the (b) last shall be (a) first," referring to the times of the Jews and the times of the Gentiles in a prophetic timeline. [1]

Chiasmus has been found extensively in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Declaration of Independence, and even modern speaches, raising the question as to whether chiasmus is created intentionally by the author or, as some might propose, a sign of inspiration. [2]

Are these claims anything more than Sterling D. Allan's pet theories? The second part is at least half-true, but since when is knowledge of rhetoric indicative of anything more than, well, knowledge of rhetoric? --MIRV 09:11, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mae West

Are the epigrams of Mae West double entendres or an exmple of chiasmus? Would love to know which is more accurate. Lentisco 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't speak for them all, but certainly in some cases she was employing chiasmus that made a double-entendre. The most famous being "It's not the men in your life that matters, it's the life in your men."

--Mdb23b (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

antimetabole

Should the examples of antimetabole be moved to its own page or should antimetabole be merged with this page? --Ben Trent 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the examples should be moved to the antimetabole page, and a reference placed in this article along the lines of: "Chiasmus is often misinterpreted as antimetabole. However, the difference lies in th chiastic tendency to use different inverted words or phrases," with a link placed to the antimetabole page. Merging the antimetabole article is wrong because it is simply not chiasmus, and therefore should not come under that heading. --duklai 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Two separate articles for antimetabole and chiasmus are clearer, but yes move the examples of antimetaboles from chiasmus, and reference them Eslonim 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with each to some degree: having two articles is certainly a good thing (and may indeed help prevent the very confusion they address!), but having some examples on each page is also helpful. Should the merge message be removed? puzzleMeister 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The antimetabole section has become longer than the actual article by that name. When I get a chance, I will revise that section, shorten it, and move the examples over to that article. Please post new examples under the antimetabole article. Also, please keep in mind that if only one word changes meaning rather than two in reversed order that this is actually an example of Antanaclasis. Legis Nuntius 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference on Distinction

"classical rhetoric it was distinguished" Where is this so called rhetoric? Who, of any authority, said chiasums "do not repeat the same words"? To change the meaning of "chiasumus" without reference is simply abusing the privilege of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehmo (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How about this? "A variant of antimetabole, to which the name 'chiasmus' is sometimes applied, abandons the constraint of repeating the same words in the second colon yet retains a pattern of inversion."[3] I suggest reading more Latin and Ancient Greek before editing articles on esoteric subjects involving them or at least using Google beforehand. Gx872op (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Slightly different interpretation of Chiasm(us)

My understanding of the ABBA structure of a Chiasm is that it takes this type of form:

Philemon 1:5 (King James Version) "Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;"

Love for the saints, faith in the Lord. A for the A, B in the B. A and B, for the B and A.

I don't see this type of construction in any of the citations mentioned on this main page. Am I wrong, or is an update/addition necessary?

I'll take a look at that passage in Latin and Greek to get a sense of the grammar. Chiasm, chiasma, chiasmata are biological terms. Chiasmus (pl. chiasmi) is the rhetorical device.

"akouôn sou tên agapên kai tên pistin hên echeis eis ton kurion Iêsoun kai eis pantas tous hagious"

"audiens caritatem tuam et fidem quam habes in Domino Iesu et in omnes sanctos"

Looking at the Greek and Latin, I can see why there are so many different translations of this passage. It is not exactly clear whether the two prepositional phrases in the relative clause go with fidem and caritatem individually or together. Some translations put it into a chiasmus while others take them together; still others take them singularly but in parallel structure. Through your translation, the reversal is syntactical as the prepositional phrases are reversed in the order of the objects they modify and the verb in the center "habes" forms the grammatical cross. Because this has to do with the grammar, it falls under the grammatical chiasmus category for rhetorical purposes. Quite a few scholarly articles have been written about chiasmus in the Bible. Chiasmus can sometimes give a different meaning from a parallel sentence. In Philemon 1:5 for instance, the issue of chiasmus centers on the issue of "faith in the saints". To keep neutrality, any article describing this passage would have to discuss each side. Because this is an article on a rhetorical figure, I believe discussion of some of the more controversial chiasmus would be tangential. But, a new article on chiasmus in the Bible which addresses this discussion would be a great idea. The scholarly debate is quite good and has been going on for several hundred years. Legis Nuntius 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beispiele

Ich denke, dieses Beispiel ist logisch verwirrend, wenn grammatisch korrekt:

Ein Beispiel für eine parallele Satz:

    * "Er wissentlich gelogen und wir blind gefolgt"

    (A B A B)

Umkehren in Chiasmus:

    * "Er wissentlich gelogen, und wir folgten blind"

    (A B B A)

So ist es ein Chiasmus auf der Grundlage von Gegenwart und Vergangenheit? Eine oberflächliche Analyse entzieht die Laien. 98.14.94.198 ( talk) 07:38, 11. Dezember 2008 (UTC)

• ==*los:-*

I think this guy must have been using a translator and forgot that it was an English article.
Wilkomen bei Wikipedia Herr 98.14.94.198
Warum sprichts du Deutsch? Meistens hier kann nicht Deutsch, es ist eine Englische Seite. Ich denke du benutzt einer Internet-Übersetzer, solcher Übersetzer machen immer Irrtuemer, aber ich mache vielen Annahmen. Veilleicht ich kann Uebersetze diese Beispiele besser:

   * "Er wissentlich fuehrte und wir blindlings folgten"

   * "Er wissentlich fuehrte und wir folgten blindlings"

fuehren, nicht luegen, aber das ist nicht so wichtig
Internet-Übersetzer wissen nicht die Unterschied von gesehen und sah, gespielt und spielte, etc.
Also, sprich kein Deutsch hier bitte, es ist Blasphemie.
He says the following example doesn't make any sense, and then he pastes what appears to be a German translation of part of the article (I checked the German version of the page, it's not from there), which indeed is grammatically incorrect, translating 'led' as lied, using the wrong version of German past-tense, which led him to think that perhaps that's part of a Chiasmus. After explaining all that I politely reminded him that posting things here in German is blasphemy.Fema (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More recent examples

I'm thinking of adding a few more recent examples e.g.

Nice to see you, to see you, nice -- Bruce Forsyth
Fail to prepare, prepare to fail -- Roy Keane

Does anyone object?

--Hypnopomp (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Waits Quote

the frontal lobotomy quote is attributed as tom waits, who himself admits to having not created, and the earliest printing yet found is in the 1955 World vision and the Image of Man by Carlton Berenda, see link http://books.google.com/books?id=t6zUAAAAMAAJ&q=bottle-in-front-of-me+frontal-lobotomy&dq=bottle-in-front-of-me+frontal-lobotomy&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.176.97 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I recall the quote, taken from a Groucho Marx litany, and believe he got it from W.C Fields.97.116.117.13 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about W. S. Gilbert's lovely example in Patience, Act I, Lines 462-465, when the poet, Bunthorne, rejected by Patience, exclaims:

"Oh, to be wafted away, From this black Alcedama of sorrow, Where the dust of an earthy to-day Is the earth of a dusty tomorrow!"

71.173.89.96 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Bob Tredwell (RFTredwell@Myfairpoint.net)

Book of Mormon

Why are the references to the Book of Mormon relevant? If Chiasmus is a common rhetorical form throughout Western literature, why single out the Book of Mormon of all things for special notice?38.98.181.23 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The assumption that the Book of Mormon is 'Western literature' is not universally held. For some it is a work of ancient origin, for others it is a dubious hoax full of inaccuracies and anachronisms. The chiasmus in the Book of Mormon are highly structured features, some of which are 17 levels deep (Alma 36). This is atypical for western literary chiasmus of the era and the recognition of the existence of chiastic structures in the mid-1900s (within the Book of Mormon) demonstrates one of three positions based on your beliefs about the Book of Mormon; 1) that it is indeed a well engineered hoax using the more ancient forms of chiasmus as a clever invention or 2) that it genuinely is of ancient origin. It is beyond the scope of this article to debate this question and even Mormons will admit to the proofs of their claims lie in esoteric exercises and not by scientific means or 3) it contains these structures by happenstance and serendipity.

That being said, it deserves attention from a literary standpoint because you will find few examples, ancient or modern of the deep chiastic structures. ABBA is common. In fact, this article is (as of this writing) flagged for having excessive examples of ABBA which are prevalent in Western thought, poetry, and literature. There are few examples of really deep chiastic structures (especially in works considered by western philosophy as non-poetic) and the Book of Mormon just happens to contain [notable ones].

That's fine, but the article itself blatantly refers to "the Hebrew ancestry of the authors". This is Wikipedia, not a cult recruitment center. Hell, why not quote Dianetics, and refer to the "Space-alien linage of the authors"? If you want to list the Book of Mormon, fine. Do it without editorializing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.188.82 (talk • contribs) 21 November 2014