Talk:non sequitur

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/non%20sequitur <-- according to a lot of definitions, non sequitur also refers to a statement that does follow what precedes it. I'm not seeing that definition in this wiktionary definition so for that reason I'd like to add it. 65.31.103.28 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that particular definition on that page. Are you sure you're not misreading? —Leftmostcat 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well doesn't it say a statement that doesn't follow what preceded it in definition 2 on that page? It makes me think that this word also applies to a reply that is off the subject. I mean, I'm seeing the use of 'irrelevant response' in many of these official dictionaries as well http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=non_sequitur 65.31.103.28 17:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

English has no "official" dictionaries. Only languages whose usage is governed by an officially appointed body (such as French and Spanish) has "official dictionaries". I do tend to agree with the definition you added, however. --EncycloPetey 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note EncycloPetey. I did not know that. Anyways, thank you all for your input. User DC made a couple of finishing touches on my edit so I think all is taken care of now. :) 65.31.103.28 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Phrasal Adjective?

Non sequitur can be used as a phrasal adjective. Are phrasal adjectives not included in Wikitionary for some reason? Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Rfv-sense: "dismissal of someone's statement." Not familiar with this sense. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's wrong. SemperBlotto 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by contributor. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Obtuse

The page really needs to be improved so that it's clear/obvious what the definition is. There is a lot of beating around the bush but not a concise and straightforward presentation of the definition of non sequitur. One problem, for instance, is that the first example sentence uses the phrase itself. Using a word in its own definition is one of the classic failures of explanation. While that's not precisely the issue with that example it's still unsatisfactory for the reader to see merely an example sentence with the thing in it rather than a sentence that shows what it does so the meaning can be derived. Another thing I noticed is that it's amorphous, as presented, because there are quite disparate things that it's supposed to be. Abrupt transitions are hardly the same thing as logical fallacies, for example. "Inexplicable" makes more sense, because that, I assume, means illogical. Why not replace "inexplicable" with "illogical" and drop the "abrupt"? Does an illogical transition have to be abrupt to be a non-sequitur? I have a strong mastery of English but I've never had a feeling of strong precision when it comes to what a non sequitur is. Based on my cursory examination of the entry here, it seems as if the imprecision may either be commonplace due to inadequate study or the unavoidable result of the inherent imprecision of non sequitur as a concept in English. After writing the previous sentence, I checked the OS X dictionary (New Oxford American) and it is much clearer. It has only one definition: "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement." It could be improved, though, by providing examples. — This unsigned comment was added by 107.77.193.114 (talk) at 20 August 2019.

(Probably no chance the commenter will see this, but…) The first example sentence uses the phrase itself because that's what all example sentences should do: illustrate the use of the word or phrase itself. An example sentence is not part of the definition; it supplements the definition. (Granted, as you indicate, good example sentences carry within them some useful information about meaning and don't "merely" mention the term with no useful context [e.g., "Cats make good pets." vs. "Cats are good."]. And you wouldn't expect a "regular" dictionary to, say, provide images of all the various breeds of cat, would you? But you might expect examples of uses of the word "cat" in its various senses.) More to the point, though: there are, in fact, actual examples of non sequiturs in the little right-floated boxes next to the definitions. These would seem to be exactly what you are looking for (and are analogous to a dictionary having perhaps a single image of a cat to illustrate the most common meaning). As for the "quite disparate things that it's supposed to be", that's, of course, because words/phrases have different meanings in different contexts. Abrupt transitions and logical fallacies are mentioned in two separate definitions precisely because they are different things. They address two different senses of the term. Finally, the OS X dictionary's definition is so "clear" because it's only defining one sense of the term (or, well, actually two: a combination of our 2nd and 3rd senses — their wording almost exactly matches our 3rd definition, though). BTW, there are Wikipedia articles for both the logical and "literary" senses of non sequitur; perhaps these should be linked to from the entry (although the literary one currently leaves a lot to be desired). I'm not saying the examples can't be improved, just that some of your criticisms seem somewhat misplaced. - dcljr (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)