Talk:Irreversible binomial/Archive 1

Feel free
Please feel free to add to the list of examples under the relevant head. If the conjunction is neither and or or, start another section. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 08:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK blurb

 * ...that the phrase Siamese twins in the context of the English language refers to a grouping of words that is often used together as an expression and usually conjoined by the words and or or? --Gurubrahma 13:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Why?
Would anyone like to add a little section on why Siamese twins cannot be changed around?

I'm afraid I'm in the middle of my University exams and therefore have no time.

Ollie


 * I have a dim recollection from a phonology class long ago that there had been some research done that concluded that there were regular phonological rules in English, and I think in some other languages also, that at least to some extent would predict the sequence of terms in a phrase like this. I have long since lost the reference but if someone is familiar with this research it would vastly improve the article to have a section on this instead of the bare list that is here currently.  69.3.134.212 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rant and rave

 * This is listed in "Examples of Siamese twins employing synonyms", but perhaps it should be noted that through usage as a pair, the two words have commonly become thought of as opposites (i.e. a rant is exclaiming something negative, while a rave is exclaiming something positive). I'm hesitant to add this myself, though, because it's possible that this understanding of the terms is not as common as I think it is.  --ΨΦorg 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rave" correctly means "talk incoherently". Its use as "exclaiming something positive" is modern slang. Anthony Appleyard 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One could add as an example of a pair of Siamese twins employing alliteration and also antonyms, "right and wrong"

a siamese twin comment by a lexicographer
from here :

James E. Clapp, in his forthcoming Random House Webster's Legal Dictionary, says at the entry for to have and to hold:

"The English language often places a higher value on rhythm, rhyme, and alliteration than on concision. . . .redundant expressions, like nooks and crannies, each and every, hale and hearty, part and parcel, safe and sound, are part of everyday speech, and the language would be poorer without the music they provide." Mang 04:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Siamese twins employing alliteration and antonyms: right and wrong

Deleted
Deleted "Short back and sides" from trinomials. It's not a trinomial because it doesn't link three ideas, only two. It describes a "short back and (short) sides". That there are three words together doesn't make it a trinomial.

"On your marks, get set, go" is a series of instructions that progress. "ready, steady, go", and "lights, camera, action" are similar sequences. They are not the same type of construction.

--Amandajm 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary = Reliable Source?
In regards to the "shits and giggles" phrase, it cites Urban Dictionary. I don't think that is a reliable source, so I am tempted to delete that reference. Anybody think otherwise? Copysan 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez Louise
Perhaps the phrase "jeez Louise" should be added to to the "words that sound similar" section. I could understand most causes for omission, but the phrase is (or was) in common usage. NatePhysics (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Same word?
According to the definition at the start the order of the words cannot be reversed - can someone either confirm this and remove the section of examples employing the same word twice, which can obviously be reversed, or change the definition to one that incorporated those examples? 59.167.39.8 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Dave

name: Binomial
The name siamese twins is not the most common way to refer to this phenonemon. Rather a term with the word binomial is more common. Furthermore, they are not found only in the English language. I will move this page to Binomial pair if no one objects. – ishwar  (speak)  12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry cake
I've never heard the expression "strawberry cake and spinach", and google turns it up only here and on a similar list at answers.com. What does it mean and when/where is it used? Fnibbit (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

inseparable pairs
Is there a term for english word pairs that, by definition, can be used separately, but in practice never are? The only example I can think of is "ulterior" - mostly synonymous with "covert" or "undisclosed" but in I have only ever heard it used as "ulterior motive" 146.6.202.194 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that would be a siamese twin wouldn't it?

Removed
This list should not attempt to be comprehensive; that's what Wiktionary is for. I've removed some from the "and" list, including names and titles (Antony and Cleopatra, shake and bake, Sonny and Cher); quotations (be-all and end-all, warts and all); ones I've never heard of (bacon and beans, bottled beer and oysters, gizmos and gadgets); ones where "and" connotes temporal sequence (hide and seek, hit and run, time and again); and idioms where the components lose their isolated meaning (bubble and squeak, far and away, time and again). jnestorius(talk) 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I hope they got added to wiktionary then. Warts and all is Cromwell, I think be-all and end-all is the Bible. A lot of these, as fowler puts it, pairs and snares are down to the bible (in the AV) using both a French/Latin and English word. Save and except, for example, is half english half french/latin (and to some's surprise, the opposite way round than you would expect: save is the french/latin and except the english). SimonTrew (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples?
Would "the Alpha and the Omega" be a suitable example, or is that common to many languages and therefore not appropriate to this page? Also, what about "last but not least" in the "other conjunctions" section? --zandperl 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * it is Greek, but means the first and last (being the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet) and of course biblical. But since Alpha and Omega both can stand alone I don't think they could be called siamese twins SimonTrew (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there even a single pair on this list whose individual elements can't stand alone? You've never said "arm" without saying "an arm and a leg"?  You've never said "pieces" without saying "bits and pieces"?  If anything, it seems we do that more often with those sorts of phrases than we do with either the word "alpha" or the word "omega" by itself.  This is either an extremely weird counterargument or there's something I'm not understanding here.  --Hapax (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice and X
I'm inclined to think that "nice and X" would be classifiable here, despite X not being specified. There are a number of examples that would be common enough to qualify as stand alone binomials following the pattern- nice and hot, nice and warm, nice and cozy, nice and thick, nice and smooth, nice and crunchy, nice and long, etc. They would also qualify as being set phrases, as there's not much leeway for making your own terms- nice and brown works, but not nice and white. --DrHacky (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking
This list has become extremely overlinked, with links to pages that bear no relation whatsoever to the siamese twins expressions in question. Not useful. Awien (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Vim
"Some English words (e.g. vim in vim and vigor) are found solely in such phrases." Bilge of the absolute first water!!! I shall attack that contention with the utmost vim. Vigour is misspelled, as well. All joking apart, whence comes this ill-informed canard? Jatrius (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bloated
Does it seem to anyone else that this article is getting bloated with expressions that are marginally siamese twins at best, and sometimes not siamese twins at all (e.g. the latest "him and her")? If I have time and unless there's a consensus against it, I intend to embark on a purge some time soon. And of course anyone else who removes dubious entries will meet no opposition from me. Awien (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that "her and him" is typical speech? It sounds awkward to me. Those are the same parts of speech and conjoined irreversibly.

By the way, I found just a single book and a single page which gives a plethora of these binomials. In fact, there is at least one example from each category except the rhyming slang. I am sure there are other books with more than 1 page devoted to these. I added references to each binomial. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Twins with "the" in them (list them here for discussion)
What about ones that have no comma or conjunction separating them? What about "of"? I can think of a few, so I will list them here for discussion. Keeping these may open up a huge can of worms, or it may just allow for a few oddball twins that need to stay. The English language breaks a few rules, and so I think some of these fit. I am signing next to each of my suggestions. Note that some of these would fit neatly into none of the current headings!
 * bite the bullet - I like to saw logs! (talk)
 * over the top - I like to saw logs! (talk)
 * circle the wagons - I like to saw logs! (talk)
 * can of worms - I like to saw logs! (talk)
 * off his rocker - I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * These are buried metaphors rather than binomials, so I would say this article isn't the place for them. Awien (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed the point of what an irreversible binomial is. Those aren't irreversible binomials because the order of the words is determined by the basic grammar of the English language rather than mere convention. You can't reverse off his rocker to rocker his off because it changes the meaning or renders unintelligible the phrase. By contrast, an irreversible binomial is ordered only by convention - white and black sounds odd but is still meaningful (indeed most colour combinations can be given in either order). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, I could have explained myself much better. Awien (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Needles and pins?
If one of the criteria for inclusion in this concept is the idea that the two components cannot be reversed, then the phrase "pins and needles" should be deleted, as there are numerous uses in the N-P order, including but not limited to,the hit song. Wschart (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotes
Many of these are quotes or are derived from literature (e.g., "head and shoulders", "I came, I saw, I conquered", "sugar and spice and everything nice"). Do they actually qualify? It seems to me that rearranging the order in that case would not merely violate the aesthetic, but the "true to source" aspect. Klugerama (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Any of the Siamese twins listed that have a wikilink are purposely ambiguous. I am going to rant and rave about this, I guess. Since none of these words appear in prose, but rather a list of naked terms, there is no context to determine if I am referring to any particular encyclopedic entry when I mention a term. This is why there is a exception listed at the top of this article. Essentially every link is permitted to be sent to a redirect or to a disambiguous page. This is a peculiarity of speaking about the linguistic term as a collocation, and not the usage or definition. The article merely lists and describes a peculiarity of the English language, in that a lot of words are collocated irreversibly.

The advantage of linking any term listed is to permit the reader to determine what the term's encyclopedic significance is if he is unfamiliar with it. I do not want to define it for him by linking to a specific use of the term. Rather, the reader is permitted the ability to find the usage he was seeking.

For example, the link to nip and tuck, a Siamese twin, sends the reader to a disambiguous page, with three possible uses. Listings include cosmetic surgery nipping and tucking, a town in Kentucky with that name having initial capital letters, and a TV show in the US with no and in the middle but a / instead. I have no idea which one a particular reader is interested in, so I want them to visit the disambiguous page to figure it out. A previous editor chose the latter of these three possibilities as the default (and only) choice for the reader, a choice I find particularly grating and absurd. However, the reader is 'welcome to disagree with me, and perhaps would find the third choice a refreshing and obvious use of this linguistic term. So the current article has a naked, undisambiguated link to nip and tuck instead of Nip/Tuck the TV show.

That, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is why this article needs no disambig bot cataloging the number of times a reader choice is permitted. That's the long and the short of it, for better or for worse; whether that's naughty or nice is neither here nor there. You can love it or leave it, being all wise and wonderful, but to be neat and tidy with our articles here, we need some give and take when it comes to limiting the rules and regulations of the disambiguous linking. I wish this had been short and sweet and to the point, but that's the whats, whys, and wherefores of it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've put a message on your talk page, but I'll put one here as well. What is the issue with piping the term through the (disambiguation) redirect (as laid out at WP:INTDABLINK)? This does not affect the reader in any way, as one click on any of those links will take them to the disambiguation page and allow them to choose any of the items on that page. What this does do is help those of us at WP:DPL know that the link is "purposely ambiguous", so that we won't ever change it again. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 10:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

no ifs ands or buts
Siamese triplets? Btljs (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that most examples here should be unlinked
MOS:OVERLINK

This page has nothing to do with actual "bow and arrow" and "chicken or the egg". D1gggg (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"cannot be reversed"
Obviously, they can, but they "may" not. No doubt they have been for humorous purposes. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Not in My Idiolect
Some of these have no such constraints in my idiolect. For example "girls and boys" and "boys and girls" are completely interchangeable, with no preference, whether used as a mocking term of address for silly grown-ups or for actual children. To me "Ken and Barbie" is more natural than "Barbie and Ken." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.130.130 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At least as far as "boys and girls" and "girls and boys," I agree. Kostaki mou (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ernie and Bert / Bert and Ernie
I know that "Bert and Ernie" is common today, but when I was growing up in the 1970s, it was always "Ernie and Bert". There were books and albums that included "Ernie and Bert" in the title, so I know I'm not imagining things or remembering wrong! See https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/%22Bert_and_Ernie%22_vs._%22Ernie_and_Bert%22 for some discussion of both sides of this issue.

Seansinc (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)