NP; Good as Gold: rhetorical questions

[Mike Jing]

I see your point. What I'm really concerned about is whether this is
intended as a joke. It looks so to me, but of course I could be totally
wrong.


On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:57 AM Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:

> In my book the "I" of Lieberman's answer to his question is italicized. So
> there would be many doves answering: Then let's stop doing this. If that
> question is rhetorical, then only in combination with Lieberman's answer.
> It doesn't stand alone as rhetorical question. In combination with the
> answer you could call it rhetorical. The rhetoric question in the classical
> sense doesn't need an answer. The answer goes without saying.
>
> Am Mo., 7. Jan. 2019 um 01:43 Uhr schrieb Mike Jing <
> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>:
>
>> According to the OED:
>>
>> *rhetorical*, adj
>> 4. Designating a question asked only to produce an effect or make a
>> statement, rather than to elicit an answer or information. Chiefly in *rhetorical
>> question*.
>>
>> It may not be as effective as Cicero, but it does seem to fit the
>> definition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 5:19 PM Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The question Lieberman reads – has written before he utters the maxim
>>> "No more rhetorical questions" – is not rhetorical, at least not as
>>> rhetorical as the famous one of Cicero »Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina,
>>> patientia nostra?« or Does the Pope shit in the woods? or this one from
>>> around 1970: Does Rose Kennedy own a black dress? It has indeed several
>>> possible answers.
>>>
>>> And if it were a rhetorical question, directly answered by the
>>> questioner, the combination would be called Dialektikon. But that is not
>>> the case here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am So., 6. Jan. 2019 um 21:00 Uhr schrieb Mike Jing <
>>> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I should have mentioned that in the book, Lieberman was characterized
>>>> as a
>>>> poor writer who overly relies on rhetorical questions. So I thought this
>>>> was an obvious joke on him. The problem is that the common Chinese
>>>> translation of the term "rhetorical question" doesn't seem to include
>>>> cases
>>>> such as these, thus ruining the joke.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks for the reply. The reason why I asked was that there are two
>>>> ways
>>>> > to translate the term "rhetorical question" into Chinese and one of
>>>> them
>>>> > does not include the case in this passage. I guess that's what people
>>>> > conventionally mean by rhetorical question, as you have mentioned,
>>>> which
>>>> > does not include hypophora. In any case, I thought there was a joke in
>>>> > there, and also later where Lieberman changed the title of one of
>>>> Gold's
>>>> > articles into a long-winded (rhetorical?) question.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 6:34 PM <protomen at protonmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> It is a question and it is rhetorical, so there's at least a minor
>>>> joke
>>>> >> in there, though I don't believe that's what people conventionally
>>>> mean by
>>>> >> rhetorical question nowadays. See "hypophora".
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>> >> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 5:39 AM, Mike Jing <
>>>> >> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Just to make sure I got this right. In the following passage,
>>>> Lieberman
>>>> >> > first says "No more rhetorical questions", then immediately proves
>>>> >> himself
>>>> >> > wrong by using a rhetorical question in his own article. Is that
>>>> >> correct?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Producing from somewhere inside his soiled and rumpled clothing a
>>>> copy
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> > the next issue of his magazine, he swept open the pages until he
>>>> at last
>>>> >> > found the one he wanted, his regular feature boldly headlined “An
>>>> >> Outspoken
>>>> >> > Editor Speaks His Mind, by M. G. Lieberman, Editor.” “Listen to
>>>> what
>>>> >> I’ve
>>>> >> > got coming up,” he cried with excitement and prepared to read. “No
>>>> more
>>>> >> > rhetorical questions,” he exclaimed and began, “‘What, then, shall
>>>> we
>>>> >> say
>>>> >> > to those who argue this may lead us into war? I say,
>>>> unflinchingly, then
>>>> >> > let us have war.’ How’s that? I express nothing but opprobrium and
>>>> scorn
>>>> >> > for the failure of nerve of all the members of the cowardly Eastern
>>>> >> liberal
>>>> >> > establishment. That’s a phrase,” he could not hold himself back
>>>> from
>>>> >> > footnoting, “I got from Henry Kissinger.”
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> --
>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>