Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz
From: dinitz@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Unmentioned quiz - (nf)
Message-ID: <3051@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 22:53:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3051
Posted: Thu Sep 29 22:53:10 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Oct-83 04:15:54 EDT
Lines: 24

#R:uicsl:8600019:uicsl:8600020:000:1058
uicsl!dinitz    Sep 29 10:45:00 1983

The indistinguishability of these terms for rhetorical figures is
matched only by their obscurity.  Webster's 2nd International
Dictionary makes almost no distinction between the three, while
Webster's 7th Collegiate omits all of them.

If one takes the definitions of the 2nd International as absolute truth
(which would be a suspect move), then preterition is the act of passing over
a topic, mentioning it only briefly; apophasis is the omission of a topic,
while acknowledging it in the statement of omission; and paraleipsis is the
only one that imputes intention -- it is the act of calling attention
delberately to a topic, and particularly to the suggestive aspects of the
topic, by voicing the fact that to mention it would be unecessary, too time
consuming, etc.  Big deal, eh?

Since the definitions all refer to each other, we are probably safe safe to
regard them all as synonyms anyway.  As for me, outside of this interesting
word game, I shall probably never use or see them again -- but that goes
without saying.

--Rick Dinitz
uicsl!dinitz