Talk:Accismus

Untitled

No reference is given for the applications of this figure of speech, which appear doubtful if irony is involved. I am therefore deleting everything but the definition. Since no sensible, referenced comment is provided, this page becomes a candidate for deletion. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

No references were given for the applications of this figure of speech, which appeared doubtful and have been deleted; nor is there any support that it is a form of irony in the dictionary definition provided. Since the article has been an orphaned stub since its creation five years ago, the only reliable part of which is its dictionary definition, it is proposed for deletion unless someone with a proper knowledge of the subject takes it in hand. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sour grapes

Some sources claim that "sour grapes" is an example of accismus, while others disagree. There is a subtle difference: in "sour grapes" the refutation is based on an argument (although pretended). One may wish to check with [1] to see if Ancient Greeks have a special word for it (I guess they have read Aesopus, after all :-).

Meanwhile more reliable sources must be consulted. In particular, what are the opinions about the reliability of the two websites I mentioned (rhetoric.byu.edu and wordsmith.org )?

For now I put it into "see also", since it clearly looks similar. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Greek word is "ἀκκισμός" ("akkismos"). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia Of Literature describes this as a form of irony, and gives sour grapes as an example. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

While MWEL is surely a reputable source, the utterance of Fox: "grapes are sour" are hardly an irony: it is a false pretense. Of course, the whole situation is ironical, but not that utterance itself. Further, in an ironical utterance "surely I don't want it", the meaning intended to convey is actually "yes, I want it". While in "sour grapes"-type phrase the meaning to convey is "I don't want it (because ...)", only with the purpose to deny the fact "I want it".

In general, I'd rather prefer to find a good treatise in rhetorics rather than dicdef however reputable it is. Because it is too brief and deficient, so one may draw incorrect generalization from it. In the particular case of MWEL, it says that "fox's dismissal of grapes" is accismus. But this quotation does not necessarily intend to mean that the utterance "grapes are sour" is accismus. The whole behavior of Fox is.

Concluding, "sour grapes" is not an example of rhetoric figure. At the same time, according to EB, "accismus" refers not only to a rhetoric figure (and I updated our article accordingly). Therefore I would carefully phrase (to avoid contradiction with considered sources) as follows:

• "The behavior of the Fox in "The Fox and the Grapes," one of Aesop's Fables, is cited as an example of accismus".

Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input, Staszek Lem. I originally looked for references to the accismus claim for sour grapes that did not appear to repeat the 2010 WP article. For the reasons you give, I'm inclined to dismiss the Webster reference until something older and more authoritative turns up. WP is responsible for an awful lot of unreferenced misinformation getting circulated! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How old do you want such a source to be? The Webster source that I linked above is from 1995, so predates Wikipedia by a good few years. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would accept Quintillian or any other authoritative Classical work on rhetoric. I'd also accept a modern dictionary (like the OED) that actually cites a credible source for the sense given. Staszek Lem explains why the example of the fox given by Webster is nonsense. I can add to that. A figure of rhetoric requires an audience, but the fox isn't in dialogue with anyone, it is alone and talking to itself, so irony and social conventions don't come into the picture. In the article on the fable of The Fox and the Grapes, the lead explains the fox's mental behaviour as an example of reducing cognitive dissonance, quoting as source Elster, Jon (1983), Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, Cambridge University Press, p.109ff. In the given context, this makes much more sense. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OED

I'm not a rhetorician, just a stub-sorter, but in case it helps I can tell you that OED offers the definition "The pretended refusal of something one keenly desires. Also: an instance of this.", while describing the word as "now rare". PamD 11:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pam, that is helpful. I'll add here the reference to the idiom deriving from Aesop's fable in Brewer's Concise Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (London 1992, p.454), which defines sour grapes as 'something disparaged because it is beyond one's reach'. The fox pretends it doesn't want the grapes because it knows it can't get them, not because it has been offered something that it modestly declines, which is required for this to be an example of accismus. It's more a psychological than a rhetorical distinction! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please notice that the definitions of accismus we've seen so far do not discuss the reason of the "pretended refusal". Therefore according to this definition, the behavior of the Fox does not contradict this definition, and if someone adds The Fox and the Grapes (the whole accident, not just "sour grapes" phrase) to the list of examples (supplied with a reliable reference), then it stays. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the article to reflect what the Encyclopaedia actually says accismus is: 'a feigned refusal of something one earnestly desires'. The fox does not refuse (defined as 'to decline to take or accept' by Chambers dictionary) because the grapes are not offered. The situation in the fable is completely different from the scenario of Caesar or Cromwell being offered a crown. Without a reliable reference from an authoritative source, anyone who asserts that the fable is an example of accismus will be guilty of mistaken POV. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Beg to disagree. you did not read the previous talk carefully. There are reliable sources which give the fable as an example of accismus. Also, you failed to notice that accismus is not only a rhetorical figure. Read EB carefully: it specifically says "it is also a rhetorical figure". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Completely different": it may be so, but surprizingly often things "completely different" in many respects are actually classified by someting they have in common. GWBush and Abe Lincoln are "completely different", yet both are you know who. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You mention sources. Can you mention another besides the unsigned, unreferenced article in the 1995 Merriam Webster Encyclopedia of Literature that is not dependent on the unreferenced assertion in this Wikipedia article (which may itself be dependent on the Merriam Webster encyclopaedia)? I've contacted one of WP's Classics experts to see what s/he thinks. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939, I did a reasonably diligent search and came to a conclusion that this is a rather obsolete term, with modern usage close to none, and modern sources are not even secondary, (not even tertiari :-). And I am pretty much sure that whoever wrote these modern encyclopedia entries did not know very well themselves, and their opinions diverge. Therefore at this moment the only thing we can do is to list different usage suggestions from different reasonably reliable sources, with minimum rephrasing, and maximum attribution so as not to produce OR and confusion. Heck, my recent findings show that even EB seems to be confused as to the word etymology. (and I've seen other weird etymologies, probably circulated by the way of Chinese whispers).

Therefore please let us agree that sources may disagree as to the usage of this obscure term, until some scholar writes something convincing, and with sources, too. (I hope you agree with me that so far we failed to find any convincing sources other than dictionaries.) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm once more in agreement with you, except that I would describe the word as rarely used now (due to the decline in Latin learning) rather than obscure. The definitions of the word that you've uncovered (and you'll have noted that Google Books provides some from the 18thC) date from a time when study of the Classics was a principal part of European education and are therefore more likely to be accurate. My interest was initially raised since mediaeval rhetoric was one of the subjects I took notes on when studying Chaucer's narrative technique at university (a long time ago). Accismus isn't included but key rhetorical textbooks mentioned are Quintilian's Instituta Oratorio and Cicero's De Inventione; and modeling on them, Geoffroi de Vinsauf and Mattieu de Vendôme - how's your mediaeval French? At one time the word was sufficiently commonly understood as to be used in Jean Paul's German work without his needing to gloss it. What we have, therefore, is a cluster of definitions in works of reference between 1700-1850 and a sudden reappearance in works of reference from about 1990. But as you imply, modern instances seem to borrow from each other and none of them is very clear about the meaning. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Article fate

(from my talk page. Staszek Lem (talk))

Hi, there, Staszek Lem You might like to look at the discussion on the article at Cynwolfe's talk page. She's an expert editor on classical subjects and her doubts about it, as it stands now, echo mine. It looks more like a dictionary stub. Valid examples of usage would help; so would a survey of consciousness of the trope over the centuries (Jean Paul's mention of it would come in here). If the article isn't improved soon, without recourse to OR and dubious claims, I'll nominate it for deletion on a WP discussion forum. That either brings people to rescue it or else gets rid of an entry that has no part in an encyclopedia as per the guidelines Cynwolfe cites. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Yes, the article looks now as just a dicdef. However, as I see from discussions, many agree that the terl is little use now, bit was well known in the past. Therefore it is likely that the sources exist, only no available to well-meaning but relatevely ingorant amateurs like us. Also please notice that while the article is small now, it is free of nonsense and it is a solid reference for this rhetorical device. Please keep in mind that subjects long forgotten in history are also valid encyclopedic topics. [Staszek Lem] 16:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with short articles, and shortness doesn't make an article a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the article not should be deleted because it serves a purpose. There is a huge room for improvement of it, but that could be said about a lot of articles here on Wikipedia. --Spannerjam 17:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)