Talk:Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana

Deletion
While it is a lovely quote, which does have some usage, I personally don't think it notable enough. Maybe a fine addition to Wikiquote, but not used much outside the internet (and little even there). I am in favor of deletion. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I object the deletion. The rationale given is "This is a single quote by Groucho Marx. Google search shows no common usage beyond his one quote in Animal Crackers. Non-notable." This is obviously and verifiably wrong: The sentence has 500k ghits, minus "Groucho" it's still 400k. Four out of five times this sentence is used, there is no reference to Groucho Marx. According to the article, it's not known if he even invented this. This is an extremely common example to illustrate syntactic ambiguity or a "garden-parth sentence". It's probably the most popular garden path sentence there is. I'm not saying it must have its own article no matter what; it might just as well be built into another relevant article. However, the assertion that this is just "a single quote by Groucho Marx" with "no common usage beyond", is nonsense and can't be the basis for a "prod". Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's understandable that people might mistake this for a Groucho quote. They might be conflating it with "One day I shot an elephant in my pajamas," since that is a similar sort of wordplay. Richard K. Carson (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Time flies
The Use in linguistics section could use a note that "time flies" also has a different meaning by itself. So it's not just word play with flies and like. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Source
"The phrase is based on the saying "time flies like an arrow", itself used as an example of syntactic ambiguity. The saying is often attributed to Groucho Marx, as it is a line of dialogue spoken in the film Animal Crackers. The first documented use of the phrase is in a 1982 post on the Usenet group net.jokes (...)"

These can't both be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.183 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "both" refers to. There are three statements.  One is the shorter phrase it is based on.  One is the attribution to Groucho.  One is the earliest documented use.  All can be true, since the Groucho use is not documented. — Reinyday, 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How can it be traced to 1982 and appear juxtaposed in the 60s???87.103.125.82 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Time flies like seconds, fruit flies like bananas. 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Senrich

The phrase also appears (in this exact form) in Wallace Tripp's illustrated book "Wurst Seller" copyright 1981.


 * I first saw this quote myself in 1965 on a bathroom wall at Harvard University (where incidentally I was not a student). It was followed on the wall by a long series of additional graffiti, each one below the last, each trying to create a new variant on the theme.  I did not know this quote was posted to the Internet in 1982. Now I wonder if this bathroom is the same one where the Internet poster also saw it.Daqu (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Fusion of Time flies like an arrow with Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
Nothing seemed to be happening with the fusion of those articles, so I have bitten the bullet and completed the merge myself and converted Time flies like an arrow to a redirect to Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. I have not deleted any content. However, I am unhappy with two things as matters stand:

The current title is too cumbersome; one reason that I did the conversion this way round is that Time flies like an arrow had no sections that would cause broken links.

Secondly, there were pointlessly many titles of the "time flies" type. There still are. The material of the article "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana" should be included into Tempus fugit and converted into a redirect. I would have done it myself already, but I don't know how to find the articles that link to its sections. Help anyone?

I am repeating this explanation in the other articles' talk pages. JonRichfield (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss: Analysis of the basic ambiguities
Staszek Lem edited this section, omitting some items or merging them. I effectively reverted what he had done, then added some edits of my own. I do not claim that what I did was undebatable, so feel welcome to improve it all, but some of the points that motivated me were: JonRichfield (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some points (eg, that an arrow does not technically follow an exactly straight path) are irrelevant to the sense discussed, so the item should not have been removed. (There also is the colloquial simile "straight as an arrow".)
 * Some of the items merged were based on differences between the senses "flying" and "fleeing". These are different enough in context to justify the inclusion of such examples. The point under discussion is "Analysis of the basic ambiguities", not the practicalities of which senses need be presented to a listener.
 * I tried to make it clearer that the list was aimed at formal and practical problems in natural language processing, not at merging senses that would not occur to a typical human reader.
 * I also tried to make it clear that there were still other senses beyond those in the already tedious list.

Colleague, please let me remind you that you cannot do original research here. Please cite your sources for your classifications, or the whole text will go, per wikipedia policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the timely admonition, though I am sorry to note that you too have failed to provide citations for the items that you have entered. You are I trust familiar with the idiom concerning sauce for the gander? Please note that the invocation of the OR catch-all obstacle does not extend to explication of plain English text. If you find anything in any of the items that requires citation, please specify which it is and what you demand cited. It is not enough for you to delete text saying that you demand a citation without reason, or you could demand citations for such things as "time" or "arrow". What part of the text did you fail to understand? "Imperative"? "Declarative"? I could link them to wiktionary if you find them too challenging, or perhaps you would prefer a helpful link? My sources in this matter, either for items that I had added, or that the original author had entered, would be English dictionaries. If you can find one of the usages in one item of the list that does not appear in any standard English dictionary, please point it out and erase it, as is your perfect right as an editor, and I will happily acknowledge your contribution, and replace it together with a citation from another dictionary, or more if you prefer. However, repeated deletion of material without justification is vandalism, and we would hate to think of you in such connections. JonRichfield (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again SL. Thank you for your courtesy in this time marking your dissatisfaction instead of just deleting stuff. It gives us the opportunity of constructively discussing the problem, and there certainly is an overriding problem; we can discuss the rest of your queries in turn, but first consider the following:
 * (declarative) each of a type of flying insect, "time-flies," individually enjoys an occasional arrow when there is an opportunity (compare: "He prefers beer, but I like a martini")[original research?]
 * (declarative) the common metaphor "time," moves in a straight path[original research?]
 * (declarative) a copy of the magazine Time, when thrown, moves in a similar manner to that of an arrow.
 * (declarative) time flees (attempts to escape) in the same way that an arrow does.[original research?]
 * (declarative) The company responsible for publishing Time Magazine (via synecdoche) is fleeing like an arrow would.[original research?]
 * No, not one of those is research in any sense at all, never mind OR. Each of them is simply a direct English interpretation of a proposition in English; it is not an assertion. In context this material neither makes nor synthesises any assertion that "the common metaphor "time," moves in a straight path". IMO, that snippet doesn't even mean much at all, but it is a straightforward English paraphrase, and as such in an English article it requires no citation (ask yourself what sort of citation you would find adequate! Definitions from the Shorter Oxford for "metaphor", "time" and "straight"? Hardly! We certainly would need no citation for physics textbooks either, I hope you can see! it is like the earlier point that we don't have to defend the assertion that it is irrelevant that "an arrow does not technically follow an exactly straight path"). Frankly, even if the English quote had been in a Polish article you would have been on very shaky ground demanding a citation, but in an English article? PLEASE! That would be like demanding a citation for 3*5=5*3, which in a similar sense could be regarded as a paraphrase (since it is not a matrix operation!). (Oh, and BTW, don't take the martini comparison too literally; I don't really like them.) Lets get all that straight first, then we can proceed. But wherever you ask for citations, please make sure that your request is meaningfully answerable.  JonRichfield (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagreed. Even the article says: "Such variations do not as a rule occur to native English speakers". This means someone had to think really hard to invent all these coombinations. I.e. you either read them somewhere or invented yourself. There are contexts where 3*5=5*3 requires citation or proof. Even ingnoring these, WP:V says "verifiability". I can readily  find citations if someone is insistent. But the very fact that you went such lengths typing instead of just citing one of several texts which do discuss the phrase, makes me smell something fishy here. And yes you have to defend the assertion that an arrow moves in a straight path. And technicality has nothing to do here. I do know that a crow flies in a straight path, "as the crow flies", but it is "straight as an arrow", not "straight as an arrow flies".   Also '"Time" flies like and arrow' is not the same sentence as 'Time flies like an arrow', if you want to dig linguistics here. And so on. So please don't go English on me, just provide citations where requested, i.e., in places where the examples are unconventional. I didn't tag them all, as you may see. I left those which I've seen elsewhere as they are, per WP:V. I myself may add 2-3 combinations you missed, you know. Here is one I bet no one used before: "Time flies, like, an arrow" - time uses an arrow to fly, with 'like' being, like, an interjection like, er, thingy. English language, loud and clean. Shall we add it to the article now? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again SL. No special respect required, I assure you. Your serious attention in discussing the topic is more than enough respect, you may be sure, and I reciprocate with my own serious attention. I proceed accordingly.
 * You said in part: "This means someone had to think really hard to invent all these combinations. I.e. you either read them somewhere or invented yourself." Yes, it is very likely that someone had to think, but that does not imply anything resembling OR. Suppose Someone had said: "One of the English words that has no conventionally rhyming word is phantom." I sits and thinks and says: "Wrong! What about bantam and quantum." This would be likely to lead immediately to all sorts of quibble and argument, but all the same there still is no OR; the matter is fully visible and is an English commonplace. There is no point to tracing some English work where someone had rhymed any of those three words -- the reader can follow the ostensive evidence if he can read English (which we may take for granted, or he would not be here, right?) He simply mutters something like: "Phantom -- bantam... OK... Quantum... naaah... that's stretching it I would say." And he would carry on. To quote a dictionary that lists those words and pronunciations would pointlessly clutter the text, insult the reader and bring WP into bad odour. But it still was research you insist, because I had to think of the rhyming candidates? SL, simple respect for WP and the readers demands that I have to think of every sentence I put into any article; surely that does not surprise you? Am I to supply a ref for every meaningful remark? You had better re-read the guidelines on -- what was that again? Oh yes. The capital of France? ( Ah yes; Paris. Hm. Had to think about that. Better put in a ref, or at least a link in case someone complains about my OR...) Now you know and I know that that would be nonsense, and similarly, it also would be insulting nonsense to reference a plain English alternative paraphrasal of plain English text, whether paraphrasing it had needed thinking or not. If you think any of the paraphrased words needs a reference, I can give you a reference, but you can insert it under your name, not mine please. I don't want to look a fool!
 * As you rightly say, "There are contexts where 3*5=5*3 requires citation or proof." Decidedly! And if desired I could refer readers and editors to Principia Mathematica or any of a thousand books on elementary number theory, but what is important here is the reason that I do not except maybe in suitable context, such as in appropriate context in an article on mathematical basics. The reason is the same as what I have just mentioned: in the current context any reader wouldn't even bother to say "Oh gee, that's right!" much less upbraid me for lumbering him with uncertain conclusions in higher maths. No matter how much sweat, blood and ink it had cost me to come up with that conclusion, no one in his right mind and in good faith would say "OR! Kill the bastard!" In short yes, there certainly are contexts in which practically any proposition requires proof, but equally certainly, there are contexts in which practically any proposition requires neither proof nor reference, and large classes of such contexts are those where the the support would be self-evident, trivial, or already established. And in no such case would the OR label be appropriate.
 * You mention V, and V is to my mind even more important than OR, so you strike a sympathetic chord. But SL, every single item in that list is verifiable on superficial inspection. There seems to be a matter of cross purposes here. Nothing in the article as written demands that the proposition be true or even logically sensible, or that the reader should have to verify the straightness of arrows or their flight, only whether the wording reasonably could mean what was proposed. Verification of such things on inspection is too trivial to need special attention. (Like the 3*5 thing, remember?)
 * You said: "But the very fact that you went such lengths typing instead of just citing one of several texts which do discuss the phrase, makes me smell something fishy here." The mind boggles. In context "something fishy" suggests ulterior motives. I did not supply most of those examples, so my nose is clean, but I cannot imagine what their author could have hoped to gain from... from what? From publishing them? SL, go back to what this section is about! It deals with Syntactic ambiguity. (IMO "semiotic ambiguity" would be a better term, because there are semantic and pragmatic aspects as well, but never mind that.) The point is not so much to show that there is an alternative syntactically and semantically valid interpretation, but several, some of which, though obvious on presentation, are so unlikely before the fact, that it is enormously difficult to program a system that could fish them out in anticipation in the way a human would dismiss them if anyone had suggested them in "real life". You also said "And yes you have to defend the assertion that an arrow moves in a straight path." I say again, no! Firstly, you contradict yourself in adding: "And technicality has nothing to do here." In the relevant sense it certainly has no role here; I thought it was I that had said that in the first place. No one is trying to prove that arrows are straight, or fly straight; it would hardly have changed the situation if I had substituted "crooked" or "loud" for "straight". The point was the difficulty of selecting an appropriate interpretation from the raw statement, not whether the statement or interpretation was technically correct. Ask yourself how you would program a computer to select any of those statements as being the right one, and the others wrong. Then you said: " Also '"Time" flies like and arrow' is not the same sentence as 'Time flies like an arrow', if you want to dig linguistics here." Here you confuse me. I assume that where you wrote "and" you meant "an", but granting that, it seems to me that you are echoing exactly what I (and my predecessors in this article) were saying, namely that context (including punctuation, if that was your point) is critical to interpretation. In short, reliable, non-trivial, context-free natural language interpretation is impossible.
 * You said: "I do know that a crow flies in a straight path, "as the crow flies", but it is "straight as an arrow", not "straight as an arrow flies". Forgive my reservations, but I happen to know crows rather well. If you had chosen cormorant, or heron, or francolin, you might have a point, but crows are not particularly straight fliers; they generally fly straighter than our pedestrian routes over hill and dale, but that is about all. Secondly, you have no basis for your assertion that the proverbial expression refers to the shape rather than the path of the arrow (I do not have WP's obsession with OR, but I do insist on evaluating certain classes of proposition rather critically!) Both senses are common in colloquial English, and I reckon that the path is referred to more often than the shape. Much more to the point, it would make no difference if you were correct, because the relevant point was no more the straightness of the arrow's path, than it is the straightness of the crow's path; what matters is the syntactic/semantic relationship in the process of text interpretation.
 * "So please don't go English on me". Let's get one thing clear in advance. I am certain that you speak English better than I speak Polish, and if I know educated Poles, the chances are that you speak a handful of other languages better than I do as well. So I am not sneering at your English, which is very good. The reason that I keep mentioning the language in question is that it happens to be the relevant language. A similar exercise on the same principles and topic could be based on any other natural language, I am sure. It still comes down to the same unforgiving point: the issue is the demonstration that a simple everyday proposition in a natural language can resist simple, unambiguous interpretation. The reason under discussion is that natural language speech is rich in syntactic ambiguity that people do not normally notice. They can however recognise the ambiguity spontaneously and immediately on presentation of an appropriate paraphrase, and they can do so without special technical training. In contrast a computer system would need enormously sophisticated programming to get anywhere near interpreting such text efficiently and reliably. I have no doubt that you could present a homologous example in other languages. (But don't bother, not here anyway! ;-) )
 * I loved your "Time flies, like, an arrow" and your explication, and I bet a lot of other people would too. (The mental image of that speaker, maaan...!) I would be only too happy to see it in the list of declaratives, though it might equally well have been exclamatory or interrogative, I reckon. Feel welcome! JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Colleague, much as I love an intellectual debate, I see no particular point to continuie it here, for two reasons: (1) the issue is not article content per se, but what constitutes original research in wikipedia articles related to linguistics and to what degree a natural (and, say, proficient) English language speaker has rights to declare some language facts "immediately evident" and requiring no proof or references. Therefore the discussion must be carried out in a more general forum, rather than in a curiosity article talk page. (2) This case is relatively harmless in terms of the violation of OR, and my major concern was turning the article into a growing coatrack of examples. Being a mathematician by (long forgotten :-) education I could not help but estimate a number of combinations based solely on different meanings of the four full words involved. I take a bare minimum of 10 meanings of 50(!) listed in time (disambiguation), 10 meanings of 50 listed in arrow (disambiguation), 10 meanings of the word "like", and meager 4 meanings of the word "flies". Even ignoring other subtleties listed in the article, we arrive at a bare minimum of 4000 possible interpretations. So I am telling you I am fully aware of the problem computer translation faces. And WP:OR issue here is a classical case of the paradox of the heap: 3-5 examples are OK, but to select meaningful ones from the (at least) 4000 cases requires a good deal of research, don't you think? Oh, and not counting homophones and typos, too: DYK ...that "Thyme vlaies like a narrow"?

So, like I said, since (at least at the moment) the "danger" of OR in this article is rather small, I am dropping this case, only making a fix to alleviate one of the problems I think really glaring (and which demonstrates, in a small scale, the dangers of OR, which I insist still presents in the article, and I cannot help but notice that my fix is but another collaborative contribution to it :-(. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SL, that was a most entertaining response, thank you! I hadn't thought of the combinatorial aspects, being, as I was, practically hypnotised by the linguistic connections. I was of course aware of the sorites problem in other connections, but I had not realised that we had such an article in WP, and it has some nice material. You tempt me sorely, but I will discipline myself to avoid a new discussion on the various aspects of the problem quite outside of the article as it stands (Get thee behind me...!) As a matter of my personal interest, I am fascinated by the concept of "entity" and the sorites problem is closely related. Still, I can comfort you on this point: the list is already, as you observe, beginning to totter. If any wild enthusiast tries to exhaust the range of possible interpretations, some editor will speed to the rescue and prune the sorites to an acceptably small pinch of grains rather than a pile. All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Problematic assertrion
The first paragraph of the History section reads as follows:

"The expression is based on the proverb: "Time flies", a translation of the Latin Tempus fugit. This translation is misleading to the modern English speaker, because the Latin fugit did not mean fly in the sense of aviation, but in the sense of flee (cf. "fugitive"); in modern English to say "fly" when meaning "flee" would be unusual. However, this does not seriously affect the perceived intention of the metaphor in practice."

I did not know that the meaning of the original Latin phrase was different. But this fact makes the assertion "However, this does not seriously affect the perceived intention of the metaphor in practice" seriously questionable.

I would normally say that a change in meaning from one verb to another very "seriously" affects the perceived intention of what is said. "Time flies" means that time moves fast. I would guess that "Time flees" means that what was once the present goes away. In any case, the two interpretations seem quite different to me.

But in any case, this is strictly an opinion, which therefore violates the rule against P.O.V. statements in Wikipedia articles. So the last quoted sentence should be removed.Daqu (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact, the verb fly has the archaic meaning "to flee" in English, hence fly-by-night – bats may literally fly by night, but when applied to humans, literal airborne flight is obviously not the intended meaning. (Contrast fly-by-wire, which sounds confusingly similar.) Therefore, the translation "time flies" for tempus fugit is literally correct – in archaic language at least. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415131319/http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/caos.php to http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j17/caos.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin of "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
This slogan originated in the early to mid 1960s among researchers in Natural Language Parsing, which involved the intersection of Linguistics (syntax) and early Artificial Intelligence efforts. It was one of several aphorisms that resulted from the revelation that natural language understanding and machine translation were much more difficult problems than some people had naively thought they were (see AI winter). Another one from that era is machine-translating "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" from English to Russian, and then from Russian back to English, resulting in "The vodka is good but the meat is rotten". In any case, "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana" did NOT originate from contexts of literary criticism or classifying rhetorical figures of speech, which is the impression given by this article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion
This isn't really significant enough to have its own Wikipedia page. I suggest deletion. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a well-known aphorism among linguists and translation researchers, which is now also known to many outside of academic linguistics and computer translation (its original context)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)