Talk:am I right

Dickens quote
Unless you are saying that every question asked in that chapter should be given a Wiktionary entry, then that is a bad example. --WikiTiki89 16:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a totally different issue. If somebody finds multiple instances of such being used rhetorically in meaning beyond SOP, then I don't see what the problem is.  As I mentioned on the AfD entry, I'm more interested in tracking down "am I not right", also used rhetorically, with the identical meaning as this phrase (but fishing for the opposite answer).


 * Meanwhile, the Dickens example is 100% rhetorical. Even if you ignore the dialogue, just look at the actual assertion.  It's an essentially meaningless platitude with the attached "am I right" question having no possible objective yes/no answer, yet Jacques #2 plays the dutiful yes-man right on schedule to Jacques #1.  It's all part of Dickens' magnificent writing art: there's something wrong with these people.


 * If you want to clarify this entry with an extra SOP definition, no problem. That is the most common use of the phrase. Choor monster (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

am I right

 * Previous discussion: Tea room/2014/June

Created despite two editors one editor objecting and none supporting. --WikiTiki89 13:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize that I did not actually vocalize my own objection. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I took the objection as inapplicable since Equinox claimed there was humor in the longer phrase, and was simply unaware that it occurs in the simpler phrase. Choor monster (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * More relevant, the stated definition makes it clear this is not SOP, which is what I interpret Equinox's "transparent". See the three citations, in no case is the questioner actually in doubt.


 * Of more interest to me is the relation with the phrase "am I not right?" The two phrases are seemingly interchangeable! Choor monster (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the stated definition is exactly what you would expect from a rhetorical question. --WikiTiki89 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. As opposed to the more common SOP usage of the phrase "am I right".  The difference between this and "am I right or am I right" is simply the latter is never used in an SOP manner.
 * So I have no idea what you are actually objecting to. Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the possible interposition of "not" is of any consequence. Consider, constructions like "am I tall" and "am I not tall" can also basically mean the same thing. However, I wonder whether WT:COALMINE stretches far enough to encompass am I right as an alternative spelling of amirite. bd2412 T 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood Wikitiki89's "No" as referring to my "More relevant" paragraph, not "Of more interest", and responded accordingly. (We had a side discussion on Talk:am I right regarding "rhetorical question", and also in the edit summaries on the entry history.) Choor monster (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: In our disagreement, there is possibly some confusion over the phrase "rhetorical question". I am using the phrase in the sense of WP, and not in the sense of WT rhetorical question. Choor monster (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I brought up the rhetoricalness of the question in the side discussion is because the definition stated the question is rhetorical and thus a citation that isn't contradicts the definition. That had nothing to do with this deletion debate. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I nominated this because it is SOP, not because it is rhetorical. You can ask many questions rhetorically, that doesn't make them idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And I claim that because it is rhetorical, it is not SOP. When someone asks "are you nuts?", he is not engaging in an SOP query based on incomplete information about your mental health, but is simply asserting that your recent suggestion/activity was deeply and obviously flawed.


 * For the phrase "am I right?", the difference between literal and idiomatic meaning is less extreme, but it is definitely there. The four cited examples are all cases where the speaker is taking it for granted that the answer is a resounding, unambiguous yes.  The speaker is not trying to resolve doubts about something he just said.  Let me cite three examples that I did not include:


 * "At first the man-child has no teeth, but about the sixth month&mdash;am I right, sir?" (Herman Melville, The Confidence-Man, )
 * "My idea is: let young lad run about and play with young lads of his own age and not be. Am I right, Jack?" (James Joyce, Dubliners, )
 * "The only airstrip capable of taking such a plane&mdash;am I right, Harling?&mdash;is here in Nassau." (Ian Fleming, Thunderball, )


 * In each of these cases, it's not clear to me whether the question is literal or rhetorical.


 * Overall, the use of "amirite" as a substitute for the rhetorical usage is proof the two senses are far enough apart to warrant our attention.


 * Again, I see no difference between distinguishing between the literal and rhetorical senses of "am I right?" and of "am I right or am I right?", other than the latter is not normally used in a literal sense. Why do you oppose "am I right?" but support "am I right or am I right?"  (I'm assuming your support for the latter is not contingent on the snowclone issue.) Choor monster (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Are you nuts?": That is a typical example of exactly why I think we don't think we should add every possible rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are part of language usage, that does not mean they have their own special place in the lexicon. Both "Am I right?" and "Are you nuts?" have exactly the meaning you would expect given their parts and the contextual indication that the question is rhetorical.
 * Regarding "Am I right or am I right?": As Equinox said, he created this not because it is rhetorical, but because it has the unusual feature of having identical clauses on both sides of the "or". I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this, but the point is that that argument is irrelevant for the plain "Am I right?". --WikiTiki89 17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can use logically-equivalent phrases to look for the limits of idiomaticity: "are you nuts?" can have any synonym (crazy, daft, out of your mind, etc.) substituted for nuts and mean the same thing. If we were to discover a new word, "zglurn", that meant the same thing, it could be substituted and the phrase as a whole would mean the same thing: "are you zglurn?". The question then becomes: do we change anything if we say "am I correct?", "am I wrong?" or "am I in accordance with reality?", and does any change come strictly from the nature of the item substituted? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as they are said in the same tone, "am I correct?", "am I wrong?", and "am I in accordance with reality?" all mean the same as "am I right?", although they may be less common and the last one even unciteable as a rhetorical question. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec, response to earlier comment) I don't recommend adding every possible rhetorical question. Just those that are properly attested.  The fact that the meaning changes from SOP, whether or not it follows a predictable arc, means that it is not SOP.  You are claiming, when you refer to expected meanings, that in essence, SOP+"rhetorical marker" is still SOP, so an entry explaining the rhetorical meaning is superfluous.  And you are relying on a claim that the change in meaning is canonical.
 * But this is absolutely not true. You are speaking as a native and are mistaking your deeply embedded fluency for logic.  For example, it's perfectly logical that "are you nuts?" could have been rhetorical words of encouragement to a friend having a wild and crazy time.  It's perfectly logical that "am I right?" could have been a rhetorical expression of self-doubt, but we actually say "or maybe I'm just kidding myself".  The fact that these are not the meanings is idiomatic.
 * The canonical example of how native speakers are rather poor judges of SOP regarding their own language is "Time flies like an arrow".
 * I fail to see how being "unusual" makes a difference in our goals here. We're trying to document both usual and unusual forms.  The fact that "am I right or am I right?" is funny looking with "or" used in a humorous way seems ridiculous as a justification, if, ultimately, it's just SOP all along.  At that rate, we should include all well-attested jokes and puns.  "I'm a frayed knot" anyone?  (I like "am I right or am I right?" because coming up with a natural, non-rhetorical SOP usage requires thinking like Kripke, but of course that's not a justification either.)
 * Should we delete nicht wahr? Choor monster (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating keeping "Am I right or am I right?", in fact I even nominated it for deletion below. Let's keep these discussions separate though, because there are different arguments to be made. Anyway... Being rhetorical does not make something non-SOP. SOP has to do with the meaning, while rhetoricity has to do with the reason. The meaning is clearly SOP even if the reason for saying it is rhetorical. And when I said we shouldn't add every possible rhetorical question, I meant every possible attested rhetorical question. As for "time flies like an arrow", it is SOP. --WikiTiki89 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies regarding "am I right or am I right?". I interpreted your request below as a preference, and when you quoted Equinox I assumed you regarded his explanation as a valid reason, one that "am I right?" lacks.
 * We don't care too much what somebody's reasons for saying something are. We care what the meanings are.  (If the reason is relevant we supply it as a note.)  The rhetorical usage has a distinct and non-predictable meaning in the two phrases I've mentioned: you are point-blank ignoring my explicit proofs above.  (I am making no blanket claims about other phrases.)  "Time flies like an arrow" is SOP if and only if you know the meaning already, which ultimately means it's not SOP at all.  (That's what the link was for.) Choor monster (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The rhetorical usage has the exact same meaning as the literal meaning. The difference is that the person asking already knows he is right and is using the question to emphasize his point (that's what I mean by a reason, and as you said, the reason is irrelevant). --WikiTiki89 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Time flies like an arrow" is definitely SOP. To not figure out what it means, you would have to assume the existence of time fly, which would have to be a noun parallel in meaning to fruit fly. As for ambiguity: it happens all over the place in English, and trying to eliminate it by treating all of the pairs of different meanings as lexical items would quickly become untenable: there's a famous line from Animal Crackers where Groucho says "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas- how the elephant got into my pajamas, I'll never know". Try clearing that up with dictionary entries! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do not see how it is possible to say that informing one's listeners that one does not know something can be understood as informing one's listeners that one definitely does know something. In the case of "am I right?" I agree the literal and rhetorical meanings are close.  In "are you nuts?" they are not even close.
 * We include Houston, we have a problem. It's use is 100% SOP, with or without "Houston" as part of the situation.
 * We include one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Again, 100% SOP.
 * We include nicht wahr.
 * How about ? The actual meaning is that the speaker wants his listener to know that the speaker gets to lie his head off, and is not to be called on it, nor to be contradicted in any way.
 * In contrast,, while now a catchphrase, is simply clever.
 * I was thinking of 'Time' the imperative verb, not the fictitious Musca temporus. Of course ambiguity is everywhere, but almost all of it is simply a one-off, and hence not our concern. Choor monster (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is saying Houston, we have a problem SOP when Houston is not the target of the statement SOP? How can one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind, a statement nigh incoherent be SOP when used in reference to the original?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course Houston is not the target! The point of "Houston, we have a problem" is that Houston still means Houston (ie, SOP).  And since Mission Control is so obviously not interested in somebody's petty problem, there is some serious mockery going on. (The snowclone "Earth to X" is similar.)  The non-SOP aspect that should have been mentioned is that we here frequently means you have a problem, but I suppose that is covered under some "royal we" sense.
 * If I say "one small step ..." when I've finished some project, I've said, SOP, that my project is of great importance to humanity. The allusion is extra.
 * In both cases, this is what WikiTiki89 above called the "reason" something was said, and he asserts having a "reason" that intimately ties in with an SOP-phrase is ultimately grounds for deletion. I disagree. Choor monster (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. All I said was having an unexpected reason is not grounds for inclusion. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you defend your RfD by identifying this weakness, then you are using it as grounds for deletion. Choor monster (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. If you added the phrase I like apples and claimed it should be included because apples are delicious, and I said that apples being delicious is not grounds for inclusion, that does not mean I am saying the phrase should be deleted only because apples are not delicious; it means that I am saying there is nothing else about the phrase that merits inclusion. If that makes not sense to you, then you can see how little sense your argument is making. If that does makes sense to you, then it will show you how little sense your argument is making. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like pie. If you called for that phrase's deletion on the grounds that its supporter's argument that it is a non sequitur is all about the reason the phrase is said&mdash;it remains, literally, a statement about savor, and the given definition is really just the speaker's reason only&mdash;then point out, "oops, no argument left for inclusion, guess we'll have to delete it" you would have done the exact same thing you're doing here.
 * I concede the statement I made is too strong. If indeed there were two arguments for inclusion and you reclassified one of them as merely "reason", you would not call for deletion.  However, that does not apply, so far as I can tell, to any of the instances I've mentioned above.  And in general, multiple supporting arguments for inclusion are uncommon with CfD-nominated terms anyway, so I consider it too strong in theory but not in practice.  I like lamp. Choor monster (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 01:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)