Talk:Paraprosdokian

Older discussion
Perhaps a comment stating that the punctuation of the second example is part of the humor is needed--I didn't consider the possiblity until it was mentioned, so others could miss it. Though it could just be me. Shilasu 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

We can self-reference if, like - Paraprosdokian is a figure of speech. You have to figure out how to speak it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.175.15 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
The definition has been substituted with phrases containing "hamburgers." The article should be corrected, but I don't know what the word means well enough to do it.

Reference for this word?
Even the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't contain this word, so can anyone give a reference for it? Otherwise, why should I believe it's not a made-up word?


 * It's a classical term - see, for example:
 * p. 218, Classical Philology > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1940)
 * p. 315, The American Journal of Philology > Vol. 86, No. 3 (Jul., 1965)
 * p. 322, The American Journal of Philology > Vol. 77, No. 3 (1956)


 * I got these off JSTOR, though unless you're connected to a university somehow, you're unlikely to be able to get access. An example of more recent use can be seen as the penultimate entry on the second page of a google search for the term. Note the URL: muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_ journal_of_philology/v123/123.2biles.pdf - v. 123 of the journal is from 2002.


 * As the word is often written in italics in the above sources, I suspect that it is merely a transliteration of the Greek (hence not in the OED), which would be something like: παραπρωσδοχιαν :) Sorry, I might as well use my Greek GCSE for something.... Soobrickay 02:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm told that it's a phrase - "παρά προσδοκίαν" - "against expectation." 24.159.255.29 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This word I found used in Edmund Murphy's book The Logic of Medicine. Thus, it is not a made-up word and is indeed from the Greek. The explanation provided here is not totally correct though, as it applies to a logic employed showing that the latter portion of the phrase seems at odds with the introduction/former part however is not contradictory to the same.--Mike 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

 * 1) "I type at one hundred and one words a minute. But it's in my own language." — Mitch Hedberg
 * 2) "I know a lot about cars. I can look at a car's headlights and tell you exactly which way it's coming." — Mitch Hedberg
 * 3) "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried." — Winston Churchill [8]
 * 4) "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." — Winston Churchill
 * 5) "[I weigh] 145 pounds, naked. That is, if that scale outside the drugstore is anything to go by." — Emo Philips[9]
 * 6) "My parents threw quite the going-away party for me... according to the letter." — Emo Philips

Should those be deleted from the article? I don't think they quite fit the definition - especially the first one. The punchline didn't cause me to reframe the first part of the sentence at all. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to see I wasn't the only one feeling that some cleanup is needed. I think both of the Churchill quotes should stay, but I'm going to remove those others, and a couple more as well. Cgingold (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're right about the Churchill quotes. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Dbutler1986, that the examples they cited should be deleted. I deleted the Churchill quote -- there's no change in meaning caused during the last part of the sentence. I also deleted two more, which didn't cause me...as far as I know...lol...to "rethink" the earlier part of the sentence. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, sadly, is this one: "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." It is incongruity between the two "flies" which creates the humour, not the reframing of the first part of the sentence; the first time you hear this, you probably reframe the second part of the sentence.  I disagree about removing "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing...", as the second part of the sentence turns this into a complete contradiction. cojoco (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also happen to agree that "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing..." quote should stay, it does force you to rethink the first part of the sentence, because it changes in meaning. The first part indicates that Americans will do what is right when expected, though the second says that they won't, and turns the indication into a part of humour (or whatever Churchill meant by that quote, I found it funny), the turning, in itself, is rethinking. --86.29.49.173 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Near misses?
I wonder if it might be informative to include a selection of "near misses", in a kind of "exception proves the rule" kind of a way? cojoco (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

how about this from "Arrested Development" "You were the last to see her alive, or dead, or whatever" - cop in arrested development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.17.152.16 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote
I was pretty sure the line "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it" was attributed to Steven Wright, not Jack Handey. Can anyone prove which of the two this quote is currectly attributed to?--Maceo (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No it was Handey. Doesn't strike me as very like Wright's style. Ceoil (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I have noticed that this example [of what I believe to be a [paraprosdokian] isn't in the list of examples overleaf, nor in my opinion, should it be included: "If I had anything interesting to add here, I would have said it. Anonymous." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.14.176 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should not be included. I disagree that it is a paraprosdokian. And it couldn't be included, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else believe, unless a reliable source said it was a paraprosdokian. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

examples
there are a lot of examples listed but people always fight about them. i think they all count as original research any way so shouldnt they all be removed?? Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your taking the definition of OR a bit too far there. Outright mass deletion is just, well I dont know. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i still think the tag should be there. i dont think youre supposed to remove tags without a good justification. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagging pages for problems says If an argument on the talk page has been made as to the reason for the tag, but someone still feels that the tag is inappropriate, he or she should explain the reasoning on the talk page. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building. Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation.. so can we discuss it instead of removing the tag without discussion please. thank you. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Ceoil that this is stretching the definition of OR a bit far. However I do agree that all quotations (eventually) need references, hence I've replaced the OR tag, with that tag. Let's all try to cite a little more reference, and a little less rulebook. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * problem is that even references that are there just tell you the person said it not that its a paraprosdokian. deciding whether they are or not counts as original research and if you look at article history has been cause of a lot of back and forth problems. Aisha9152 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Aisha9152 has a good point, although it is a strict interpretation of OR. But it strikes me that using a strict interpretation in this case would make sense, as it would limit the examples to ones endorsed by a source. Otherwise, I see no criteria for which to include and which to reject, other than personal preference. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Judgment and linguistic expertise are required to assess if the quoted examples are, in fact, valid examples of the figure of speech. Strictly speaking, that makes it original research, in my mind. The problem is that other people's examples would have to be quoted verbatim, which would possibly be a copyright violation. Even allowing fair use, I imagine that the amount of text quotable would be very little (possibly even less than generally permitted for poetry) and there would have to be a fair use rationale (such as criticism or discussion of the quoted author's work, rather than the example itself). So, strictly speaking, we would probably be limited to examples that had been written or said by one person (preferably a long time ago) and quoted as an example by another. For this reason, I would suggest, the OR barrier might be set a little higher for examples of figures of speech (if necesary invoking WP:IAR.--Boson (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would these work? one, two, three, four,five. I think that these would all qualify as reliable sources, and provide sufficient examples to get the point across. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * that is great if no one complains you should make the change! Aisha9152 (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to stripping out the list of examples currently in place and replacing same with examples drawn from the list I've of sources I've provided? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, just done! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yay thanks! Aisha9152 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Liebman
Hi. I do understand the desire to prevent the long list of examples from growing further. However, I do believe Wendy Liebman is a notable comic, who has made an entire career out of this type of construction. I can only find a single blog reference that calls her material paraprosdokian (first at ), but there is a wealth of video footage (eg) that citable quotes could be drawn from. Her site has reviews that describe her M.O. eg "She's a master of a throwaway line, of making a perfectly rational observation, then adding, almost subliminally, the punch line, which skews everything she has said before."LA Times

I'm not requesting immediate replacement in the article, but just wanted to place these notes here, until they become usable. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Misattribution of an example
"Have you ever tried just sitting down with your children, turning the TV off, and hitting them." I believe this was actually said by Bender B. Rodriguez in Futurama, Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV — not Homer Simpson as is currently stated. Also, the quote should probably end with a question mark. I'd change it myself, but the attribution seems to cite something and I don't have time to check that out. 99.177.172.109 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I double checked the source, and the article reflects it. Do you have an alternate source? I wouldn't doubt that Bender also said it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As Nuujinn is saying, we go by what the reliable sources say. There's a citation for the attribution to Homer Simpson. If that's wrong, then it shouldn't be hard to find a different citation. I imagine the article we cite (from The Journal of Medical Speech) is using as its source Heinrichs, J. (2007). Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion. New York: Three Rivers Press. Anyone have access to a copy? -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * have you tried googling the quote? there are not a lot of results which is surprising. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who's aware of this but both cartoon's are Groening's work, so my bet is the joke got recycled. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are quite a lot of hits if you replace "just" with "simply": "Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?" --Boson (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Misquoted by source
"Have you ever tried just sitting down with your children, turning the TV off, and hitting them."

That isn't from Homer Simpson. It's from Bender, in the Futurama episode Bender Should Not Be Allowed on Television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.184.211 (talk)
 * Got a source? We follow sources, and don't worry about the truth. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * if you google the episode transcript its there though not the best source. maybe we should just remove that one entry it wont hurt anything. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that notion, fwiw. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok i did it it was more trouble than its worth Aisha9152 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Invalid examples
To qualify, in my understanding, the sentence has to have two parts, the second part giving surprising new meaning to the first.

These examples don't qualify, in my view: "A modest man, who has much to be modest about." —Winston Churchill[4] "She looks as though she's been poured into her clothes, and forgot to say when." —P. G. Wodehouse[4]

The later Alistair Cooke and Churchill quotes are borderline at best.

SelectSplat (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we do not need to decide that, since we depend on reliable sources. FWIW, I "get" the surprise in the two quotes. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Those quotes citing the Journal of Medical Speech are all dubious- the journal article (looks like it came from a column rather than a paper) is itself only citing from the Figaro blog, which cites no primary sources to back up the quotes. The Wodehouse one is from here. 81.144.182.244 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * SelectSplat is correct, many of the examples are not true examples, and the reliable sources are wrong. It's more than simply a one-liner, with two parts that are witty in combination. By that definition, virtually all one-liners would be paraprosdokians. You need a setup, followed by a knockdown, and the setup causes the listener to anticipate something different from what the knockdown delivers. Hence the surprise factor which makes it a paraprosdokian. Take the following two examples. In the second example, the first part leaves no anticipation and therefore no surprise.


 * "On the other hand, you have different fingers."


 * "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."


 * And Nuujinn is correct, none of this matters here, since Wikipedia is about citing reliable sources, not about truth. Strictly speaking, on a Talk page we're not even supposed to talk about whether a reliable source is correct or false. Mandruss (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Mind rhymes?
Does this have a relation to mind rhymes? &mdash;141.153.215.89 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My recent revert
I don't think that Bill Casselman, an author of numerous books about words (mostly Canadian words, though :-) is an entirely non-reliable source. Loggerjack (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Country music
Country music is full of these witty twists. I wanted to add two examples, but was stymied by the article's requirement that some reliable source has to say they are paraprosdokia - even though it is obvious they are. Can they be added? Here are my examples. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "I've got friends in low places." --country song sung by Garth Brooks
 * "Is it cold in here, or is it just you?" --country song sung by Joe Diffie

"Low places" isn't much of an example; it probably falls more under another figure of speech than under this one... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move
Paraprosdokian is the accusative of paraprosdokia in Greek. Should the article be moved in light of this? Even if it doesn't come up very often in English, article names should be in the nominative case. Would anyone object to a move? -Anagogist (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Another example
"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" - Yogi Berra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.96.228 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dangerfield quote
This is not original with Dangerfield. It's a version of the ancient joke, "Who was that lady I saw you with last night?" "That was no lady, that was my wife." Kostaki mou (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The reference link was invalid. I've deleted the example. -- Jmc (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the link worked but the source was a forum. I agree that we need a better source than some anonymous person posting an opinion on a forum. (And for those who aren't already aware, we need the source to state that the quotation is a paraprosdokian.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in saying that the reference link was invalid, I was referring both to the fact that it was "some anonymous person posting an opinion on a forum" (i.e. not a RS) and that there was no attribution to Dangerfield. -- Jmc (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, the best example of them all is the one by Steven Wright (that is to say, the most paraprosdokian, not necessarily the funniest). The source given mentions Wright but does not directly attribute that quotation to him. Since a simple Google search will associate the quote with him, and that will always be so, there is no need for the source to make that association. If one wanted to go to the trouble of adding a second source, I doubt anyone would complain, but it's not necessary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even a simple Google search, let alone a RS, attributing the "lady/wife" example to Dangerfield, though. -- Jmc (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, just clarifying what I think are reasonable parameters for inclusion. Totally agree with the Dangerfield removal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Paraprosdokian vs. Garden path sentence
What is the difference (if any)? --Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's off topic for this page, which is for discussions about improvements to this article, but it would make an excellent question for Reference desk/Language. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. This question is exactly about the subject. And comparisons of things do belong to encyclopedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well now that you put it that way. I'm not responsible for anything I said prior to 2017. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (In my defense, I was thrown by the fact that it was presented as a question about the topic, not as a suggestion for article improvement. In hindsight I guess I could have read the latter into it.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We all quite often take some things too literally. Too bad this page suffers from the lack of eyeballs. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We have to find sources which say this, but the difference is that GPS is a grammatical artifact, while p--kian is a rhetorical figure. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Henny Youngman
What about the most famous one-liner from Henny Youngman: "Take my wife... please"? This causes the listener to re-interpret the word take, does it not? — Loadmaster (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC) I don't know. The source is as good as some of the rest. Given the multiple halfway-decent Google hits, combined with what I consider its clear paraprosdokianity, I think it should stay in. If somebody wants to improve the cite, there's no harm in that, but I think WP:V is satisfied regardless. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Rodney Dangerfield did the same thing with "My wife complains that I never take her anywhere. That's not true, I take her lots of places - but she keeps finding her way home!" &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC) I suppose I wouldn't object to your approach, but you're sure to get pushback from those who strongly feel that all we need is one reliable source (with a generous interpretation of the term, probably since this is a low-visibility article about a light and uncontroversial topic). I see that reasoning everywhere. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which source describes is as an example of p..kian?Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Take your pick. I think it merits an entry, and I thought it was in the article at one time. Or maybe that was about his tired arms after flying in from New York. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I added it using the same source as for the Steven Wright example, which calls it "probably the most famous paraprosdokian", so I put it first. I added it some time ago, but someone said they didn't understand it, & I didn't want to edit war. But I still think it's the quintessential paraprosdokian. Davemck (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work. You have no doubt made Henny very happy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "wordoriginsblog" a reliable source? Its author is an unnamed " English major who has always been rather fascinated with word trivia,". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Taken out of context it is not that funny. Logically I can deduce several contexts when it is funny and when it is not and when it is not a p..kian. Therefore IMO this example "as is" is not helpful for encyclopedic purposes. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Being funny is not a requirement for inclusion (obviously, from some of the other entries). Besides, funny is highly subjective. Lots of sane people think Don Rickles was hilarious.
 * My objection is not about being funny or not. My objection is that in this example 'as is' it is not evident where the heck there a  p--kian. For an example to be instructive, i.e., useful, either it must be explained or it must be self-evident. None of the options is here. You say "clear paraprosdokianity" in "Take my wife... please", I disagree. As I wrote already, there are plenty of contexts where the phrase has plain, unsurprizing meaning. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but the same could be said for the quotes by Simpson, Colbert, and Marx. And to my eye the quotes by Churchill (1), Churchill (2), and Cooke are seriously wanting for paraprosdokianity, I don't care what those sources say. That's equally misleading to readers, if not more so. If we are going to start applying this much editorial judgment to raise the bar, we can't be selective about it, and I don't know that I like the idea of gutting 53% of the examples. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the same problem with multitudes of example farms. Of course, we cannot be selective, but we are not almighty either; one chop at a time works fine in wikipedia:-). As for "to raise the bar", we already have guidelines in WP:EXAMPLEFARM and WP:TRIVIA. And BTW, I totally agree with your judgement of Churchills and Cooke. the problem with the sources cited is that the examples given come from the same highbrow attitude "because I say so", i.e., without actual explanation why it is so. Many cultural hints and allusions are utterly incomperehensive for people from foreign cultures. Quite a few p..kians can be concocted by taking a famous saying and smartly tweaking its ending. But to be recognized as a p..kian one has to recognize the cliche saying in the first place. Therefore in wikipedia the latter demands an explanation.
 * That said, can someone explain what's the deal with "Take my wife, please"? Namely how is that "in which the latter part of a sentence, phrase, or larger discourse is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. Reading Henny Youngman didn't make me wiser. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pondering first paragraph. Sounds like you're suggesting explanatory prose with each example, but we can't do that without taking it from sources. Since that almost never exists, you're calling into question the very existence of the list.
 * I think Youngman preceded the one-liner with something that predisposed the listener to the cliche. "Many women seem to think shopping is essential to their survival. Take my wife..." is immediately heard as "Consider my wife, for example...". Then he added the word that forced the reinterpretation as "Please take my wife off my hands." Granted, the joke is lost on anybody lacking fluency in English idiom, and my suggestion would be for them to look for the equivalent article in their native language, or to request its creation.
 * I think Youngman preceded the -- my point exactly; without a wider context it is impossible to comprehend what's going on. You cannot expect everyone in the world immediately recognizes a stupid American comedian. I also understand your point about the dangers of WP:NOR if we start writing explanations by ourselves. But can we at least agree that if the utility or validity of an example is reasonably disputable, then it is off and out? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most of those fluent in English idiom intuitively understand the one-liner without the setup (you being one of the rare exceptions, if I read you correctly). I always have, and I don't think I ever heard the context, I just deduced that it must have been there.
 * you being one of the rare exceptions No. Again you misted my point. Without the setup one-liner may be understood in several different ways according to the different meanings of the word "take" (and even "please"). The big question is which of these interpretations is a p..kian. That's why I say this example is of questionable explanatory power. all we need is one reliable source The problem with this reliable source is that it heavily relies to the fact that an average TV-addicted american readily remembers this silly comedian and hence the context where the phrase was used. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do seem to be "misting" some of your points. In the last instance I interpreted can someone explain what's the deal with "Take my wife, please"? to mean that you didn't get the joke. So I explained it, as requested. Let's try this: Which examples would you remove? And, given the magnitude and the controversial nature of such a change, wouldn't it warrant an RfC? Without it, this issue would not end here in this thread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * to mean that you didn't get the joke There is no joke in our article in the first place. Your explanation is that someone somewhere cracked a joke with this line. But the line itself is not a joke, neither it is a paraprosdokian. Just as  "To get to the other side" is not a joke. I find it hard to understand why this is so hard to understand.  Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's try this: Which examples would you remove? No, let's try this: "Many women seem to think shopping is essential to their survival. Take my wife... please" -- this is an example of a p..kian. On the other hand "Take my wife...please" is not regardless how many a reliable source you will cite. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that view and consider it a case of overthink. As I've said, I see and get a joke in the one-liner sans setup, as do others in thread. You seem to be saying that our perception is faulty, and that's a dead-end conversation. Thankfully, our agreement is not essential if there is an RfC. Even if you and I reached an agreement, even if a couple of more editors joined in and agreed with us, that still wouldn't be a strong enough consensus to hold for long. I suggest you start a well-framed RfC if you want to pursue this any further. If the majority reaches the wrong conclusion in your view, so be it. That's how consensus works when there is weak or no connection to policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement without a valid counterargument is irrelevant. That you get a joke is irrelevant, because you know (or may readily guess) a context where this may be a punchline. You did not answer my question: how the phrase "Take my wife...please" satisfies the definition of p..kian. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (offtopic) consider it a case of overthink -- and I consider it a case of over-reliance on American culture, whereby a reader of wikipedia is supposed to know every American comedian wisecrack. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to continue this line of conversation because it's now moot for the reason I stated above. I am simply not interested in working to establish a two-editor consensus on something that is guaranteed to be controversial in the long term. I'll revert you per BRD if you make a unilateral change in this area, and then we'll be back in this impasse. The only way forward is RfC, and that will likely bring in about as many non-American views as American ones. That RfC is yours to start since you are proposing the change. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How about "My wife baked two kinds of cake for my birthday and I was going to take my pick, but then I decided that the hammer and chisel were sufficient." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC) I note that the list is currently all male, and I'd happily accept one or two good ones from women. With cited sourcing calling them paraprosdokians of course. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That meets the definition in my opinion. However, the list is not intended to include everything that meets the definition, but rather to provide a sampling sufficient to illustrate the concept. I think it already does that. It already includes one from Henny, and, after this edit, it does not include two from the same person.

MST3K / Rifftrax
Does anyone else think that these are great examples of frequent paraprosdokians? Since the entire premise is to add commentary after an event happens in the film, the viewer is constantly re-interpreting what they just saw in the context of the joke made.

Currently, only quotes are being used as examples - so I don't think mentioning 'a good source' of paraprosdokians fits with the flow of the article. Could be used for any future expansions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1FC0:2840:301C:BED0:3AEB:5782 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sam Cassimally example
This example ("The funniest film of the year. My girl friend laughed so much she pissed on my finger") is of dubious validity. The article cited mentions it as coming from "a review of the film", without any reference to that review itself. Unless that review can be directly identified as the actual source, I propose to remove the example. -- Jmc (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I can't see how this example meets this article's definition of a paraprosdokian: "...the latter part of a sentence, phrase, or larger discourse is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part". There's surely no reframing or reinterpretation of the first part, such as there is in the other examples. -- Jmc (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nemine dissentiente, I've removed the example. -- Jmc (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Meta discussion
Offering food for thought.


 * 1) What's the page's primary goal? Surely we want the reader to leave knowing what a paraprosdokian is. Concretely, that means that they can recognize paraprosdokians correctly in the wild, and with equal importance, that they can recognize what is not a paraprosdokian in the wild. In logician-speak they need to understand both what is necessary and what is sufficient: only do we actually understand a definition. That means the presence of any false example on this page does real harm.
 * 2) Once this page has given the reader "N" excellent and varied examples of paraprosdokians, then can adding any more examples beyond that really help anything, or could it only hurt? I'd probably set N at 3, but it's perfectly debatable.
 * 3) Not everything that is an "X" also makes a great example of an "X".
 * 4) Though including an example here requires a reliable reference, excluding an example doesn't require that there be no reference. That is, no matter how many people have written that some phrase is a paraprosdokian, there's no obligation to include it here.

These observations all suggest being conservative: when in doubt, throw it out! If any example is even substantially controversial, it's very likely better to just drop it. IOW, why bother including borderline cases?

Many of the current included quotes are just jokes that a "sudden left turn" to surprising comedic or macabre effect. You're surprised, but you don't have to totally reevaluate what came before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinb9n (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle; less is often more. Practically speaking, about all one can do is (1) remove what you see as excess, (2) revert any future additions you see as excess, and (3) be prepared for the potential conflicts in both cases. For many of those edits, you will have to spend a bit of time seeking a consensus on this page (and possibly deal with editors who don't respect consensus). You will also encounter editors who don't even look at this page, so aren't even aware of an existing consensus and just re-add content that was previously removed under consensus. In my experience, few editors have the time and energy to fight such perpetual battles, particularly at such a low-profile article; I certainly don't. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed that I moved this thread to the bottom. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)