Talk:Double entendre

Son of Boss - reference to tax evasion scheme or to the sibling created by BOSS

In the world of finance and taxation, "BOSS" is an acronym for "bond and option sales strategy" which is a tax scheme. The Son of BOSS is the common label used to describe iterations of BOSS by some. I suggest that it might in fact be a double entendre where the secondary, perhaps less flattering, would be a moniker for a person who popularizes the use of the BOSS strategies. In the Son of BOSS article, Mitt Romney has been cited as noted purveyor of BOSS techniques. So, My question, could or would, Son of BOSS be considered as a contender for a double entendre with a double meaning? Wikipietime (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Answer, I'm not sure, but there may be some technical term for when an acronym ITSELF, starts to convey a meaning, (in the Euro-zone, in recent years the most seriously indebted nations are frequently referred to by the acronym PIGS, Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain), the subliminal message is clear, but I'm not sure whether this makes it a double entendre.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First picture

I believe the picture at the top with the quote "My sweet honey, I hope you are to be let with the Lodgins!" She: "No, sir, I am to be let alone."" is irrelevant because i googled the word Lodgins and found nothing relavent. :( I have no idea what Lodgins means and dont know how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.40.34 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To "let" is to lease. The gentleman in the illustration is enquiring whether she is included with the lease, yet not directly implying so.. She says she wishes to be "let alone" which could also mean one of two things. Hence the double entendre. This is probably not a good example of double entendre, yet I thought I'd explain it because it wasn't obvious to me at first either. 220.233.13.3 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that he's trying to determine if he's rented her with his payment for lodgings. Do you mean "let alone" as a double entendre of "to be free of harassment" and also "her price is not included with that of the room"?DILNN1 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, in case it isn't obvious lodgins=lodgings (furnished rented rooms, often with food and other services, should really be rendered 'lodgin's', to show he is mis-pronouncing it). His question COULD be rendered do I get a lovely girl like you to look after my needs if I rent here? … … her response is rather more 'knowing', mindful perhaps of her being only too aware of how an elderly gentleman might interpret looking after his needs, the drawing suggests that she is probably right, though there is a second meaning in her reply I hope that I am to be paid extra for whatever I might do for you. The ambiguities are probably intentional.Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not clear to me what the grammatical rule states for "lodgins": Apostrophes are normally to be inserted whenever letters are dropped, at the dropped location. So without the final -s, there should be an apostrophe after the "n" to mark the dropping of the -g. However, inserting the apostrophe at that point causes the result here to look possessive to some. Can anyone cite an authority for a rule for this case? Jmacwiki (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you (Pincrete) have apparently changed your mind about the apostrophe in the intervening 4 years. No problem either way. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The logic was that this is a quote of the actual text on the picture (ie we can't alter quotes). The apostrophe seems anyway to not help those who don't recognise this common mis-pronounciation of a fairly UK specific term. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah: I did not perceive that it was on the original picture. (The type was small enough that I overlooked it.) BTW, "lodgings" is a familiar enough term in the US as well, and pronouncing "-ing" as "-in" is also well recognized in informal speech. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Movie references

The movie section needs references. These should be trivial to provide (cite the movies!), but I do not know how to cite a movie. (It's published, and ultimate authority on its own content.) E.g., Myra Breckinridge reference inserted, but only inline. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Jmacwiki, properly speaking, we should be reffing not only the presence of these quotes, but also that they are double entendres. I'm not personally convinced that all are, rather than simply 'saucy speech'. As long as examples don't multiply excessively I tend not to worry, since the article is on my watchlist more by accident than design. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that some of the given Bond quotes are not, though the Bond movies are noted for their double entendres. Both West quotes are double entendres. I'm not sure what is meant by "[reffing] that they are double entendres", since this is the article's focus...? Jmacwiki (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That someone (other than ourselves) has called it a d-e. This is the logic employed on some other 'word type' articles. As I said though, I'm too lazy to impose such a regime on a relatively harmless article, which hasn't so far become saturated with dubious examples. Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Probably a good policy. I suppose I'm of the mind that applying a definition doesn't constitute [original] research, whether in linguistics or in algebra, though others might differ. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ungrammatical or Corruption

The reference provided doesn't claim that the phrase is ungrammatical or a corruption, but merely shows the modern French version of the phrase. Lexico (Oxford English Dictionary) says that was from late 17th Century French (obsolete) [1]. Is it possible that this phrase just came over from an earlier era in the French language and now sounds strange to modern speakers? This seems to be what happens when French speakers encounter other French phrases in English that don't match the modern version.

In any case, since the sources don't indicate that this is ungrammatical or corrupted, I would suggest changing how this is worded or finding new sources. I'll make changes if I don't get any feedback here. But I wanted to hear other opinions first. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Use your judgement, my French isn't good enough to help. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)