Difference between revisions of "Talk:Records Set"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Does that count as a pun so much as a double entendre? -[[User:Chrax|Chrax]] | :Does that count as a pun so much as a double entendre? -[[User:Chrax|Chrax]] | ||
::What would prevent it from being a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun pun]? The fact that it was probably not deliberate? I would call it a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym homonym], then. This one doesn't seem to fit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre double entendre]'s description: "The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge." There isn't really any additional knowledge, as both meanings of "set" are well-known, and the execution doesn't seem similar to those given on the page. - [[User:Mpnolan|Mpnolan]] 02:19, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT) | ::What would prevent it from being a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun pun]? The fact that it was probably not deliberate? I would call it a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym homonym], then. This one doesn't seem to fit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre double entendre]'s description: "The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge." There isn't really any additional knowledge, as both meanings of "set" are well-known, and the execution doesn't seem similar to those given on the page. - [[User:Mpnolan|Mpnolan]] 02:19, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Touché. I meant double entendre simply as double meaning, though clearly the official definition goes against me here. -[[User:Chrax|Chrax]] | ||
Revision as of 23:19, 27 June 2005
Good idea, Jon. Also, I like how the page name is a pun—Records Set as in both "the set of all records" and "records which have been set."
- Does that count as a pun so much as a double entendre? -Chrax
- What would prevent it from being a pun? The fact that it was probably not deliberate? I would call it a homonym, then. This one doesn't seem to fit double entendre's description: "The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge." There isn't really any additional knowledge, as both meanings of "set" are well-known, and the execution doesn't seem similar to those given on the page. - Mpnolan 02:19, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Touché. I meant double entendre simply as double meaning, though clearly the official definition goes against me here. -Chrax
- What would prevent it from being a pun? The fact that it was probably not deliberate? I would call it a homonym, then. This one doesn't seem to fit double entendre's description: "The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge." There isn't really any additional knowledge, as both meanings of "set" are well-known, and the execution doesn't seem similar to those given on the page. - Mpnolan 02:19, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
