Title: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: LARA on October 30, 2009, 09:07:06 PM
Post by: LARA on October 30, 2009, 09:07:06 PM
So maybe it's just me, but have you noticed that some of the deeply religious equate homophones with each other and do other sorts of swappy word play to try to make things sound true, religious or cutesy when they aren't? Dammit, I'm trying to think of an example or a name for it, but it's not a metaphor (even a badly convoluted one, I've been guilty of these many a time) or really a pun, just nonsensical. Anyone got a term for this? Or even know what I'm talking about?
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: Will on October 30, 2009, 10:05:11 PM
Post by: Will on October 30, 2009, 10:05:11 PM
I think they're being dishonest with their language over there. 
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: Renegnicat on October 31, 2009, 12:45:57 AM
Post by: Renegnicat on October 31, 2009, 12:45:57 AM
Example? 
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: AlP on October 31, 2009, 02:05:14 AM
Post by: AlP on October 31, 2009, 02:05:14 AM
Quote from: "LARA"So maybe it's just me, but have you noticed that some of the deeply religious equate homophones with each other and do other sorts of swappy word play to try to make things sound true, religious or cutesy when they aren't? Dammit, I'm trying to think of an example or a name for it, but it's not a metaphor (even a badly convoluted one, I've been guilty of these many a time) or really a pun, just nonsensical. Anyone got a term for this? Or even know what I'm talking about?When used as a rhetorical device: a pun or double entendre?
Quote from: "Renegnicat"Example?"Her faith in god was true."
True has at least two meanings. It can mean either faithful or consistent with reality.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: LARA on October 31, 2009, 02:08:53 AM
Post by: LARA on October 31, 2009, 02:08:53 AM
QuoteRenegnicat wrote: Example?
Good and fair question. I guess it was in a username I noticed "hymn" for "him" and I seem to recall other instances of this type of wordplay. I was wondering if it was something others had noticed or it was just me. It's hard to describe it exactly. I think what Will wrote is accurate, just people being dishonest with words to try to make something seem true or deep that really isn't. I guess I was wondering if there was a specific name for this kind of wordplay other than just a pun. I think I'm being pedantic. Words and definitions get so
for me sometimes. I'll have something in mind and yet just not be able to describe it exactly. The fault is mine here for starting a thread without having more decent concrete examples. I think it's just a penchant for punning in the religious that I'm noticing, except the puns aren't meant in a funny way they are supposed to mean something.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: AlP on October 31, 2009, 02:25:13 AM
Post by: AlP on October 31, 2009, 02:25:13 AM
I think it's that's still a pun.
Quote from: "Oscar Wilde"Immanuel doesn't pun; he Kant.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: Renegnicat on November 01, 2009, 02:23:54 AM
Post by: Renegnicat on November 01, 2009, 02:23:54 AM
A|P : 
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: Ninteen45 on November 02, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
Post by: Ninteen45 on November 02, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: "AlP""Her faith in god was true."
You mean like True love?
You Can't get it, but it still exists, because said people in the party believe it exists within their reality.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: AlP on November 03, 2009, 05:02:52 AM
Post by: AlP on November 03, 2009, 05:02:52 AM
Quote from: "Ninteen45"You mean like True love?Sure. That would be a usage of "true" that doesn't mean "consistent with reality". In this context it might mean "faith" but I suspect to many people the meaning is more about "fidelity".
You Can't get it, but it still exists, because said people in the party believe it exists within their reality.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: joeactor on November 03, 2009, 03:37:12 PM
Post by: joeactor on November 03, 2009, 03:37:12 PM
Quote from: "Ninteen45"You mean like True love?
He clearly said "To Blave", which means To Bluff, so you were probably playing cards...
Ok, how's this for an example:
Know God, Know Peace.
No God, No Peace.
Fit the bill?
JoeActor
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: Renegnicat on November 04, 2009, 10:37:12 PM
Post by: Renegnicat on November 04, 2009, 10:37:12 PM
I believe that's a fairly sophisticated form of punning, is all.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: LARA on November 05, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Post by: LARA on November 05, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quotejoeactor Wrote: Ok, how's this for an example:
Knxw Gxd, Knxw Peace.
Nx Gxd, Nx Peace.
((***Disclaimer: partially disemvowelled and x substituted to prevent meme reproduction*** :P))
Good example. And definitley a pun. Honing this down to the appropriate label helps me out. Thank you.
The only other group I know who does puns better are those in advertising (the ones I know are in graphic arts).
So I have to wonder, do puns and word play make memes more memorable and therefore infectious? I would say yes.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: Renegnicat on November 05, 2009, 04:58:46 PM
Post by: Renegnicat on November 05, 2009, 04:58:46 PM
If it's not in written form, it just makes the message more confusing. Try saying out loud and deducing the meaning in a heartbeat. It isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Homophones are not equivalent! What is this crap anyway?
Post by: nikkmichalski on November 14, 2009, 03:07:13 AM
Post by: nikkmichalski on November 14, 2009, 03:07:13 AM
Until I clicked on it, I thought this thread said 'homophobes'. It's been a long week.
Maybe part of what you're saying is equivocation (logical fallacy), replacing using two words with different meanings interchangeably.
"Evolution is just a theory."
"A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocati ... nothing.22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation#.22Better_than_nothing.22)
Kinda in the same vein as "No True Scotsman", straw man.
Maybe part of what you're saying is equivocation (logical fallacy), replacing using two words with different meanings interchangeably.
"Evolution is just a theory."
"A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocati ... nothing.22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation#.22Better_than_nothing.22)
Kinda in the same vein as "No True Scotsman", straw man.