Do you think that triple entendres are possible?

[Deleted]

Despite all of the controversy, most scholars and philosophers argue that triple entendres don't actually exist.

-Do you think that triple entendres exist? (Not homophones but ACTUAL triple entendres.)

[poser765]

Sure. Here we go.

"Why don't you blow."

Implies I want you to;

1. Blow on my hot food
2. then give me head
3. then leave rapidly.

Phew, I have done the impossible. poorly maybe but done all the same.

---------- Post added 2012-06-19 at 01:59 PM ----------

Hey poser what are you doing?

Why, good sir, I am am running.

Running for election, exercise, and my eye make-up is smearing all down face because of the sweet..

[vizzle]

Can you lick my cock?

1) Can you lick my penis
2) Can you lick my rooster
3) CAN you lick my penis?
4) CAN you lick my rooster?

I HAVE DONE THE IMPOSSIBLE. 4TANDRE.

[Deleted]

Sure. Here we go.

"Why don't you blow."

Implies I want you to;

1. Blow on my hot food
2. then give me head
3. then leave rapidly.

Phew, I have done the impossible. poorly maybe but done all the same.

---------- Post added 2012-06-19 at 01:59 PM ----------

Hey poser what are you doing?

Why, good sir, I am am running.

Running for election, exercise, and my eye make-up is smearing all down face because of the sweet..

Those are terrible and also not triple entendres. You can't just assign three random meanings and call it a day. How were we supposed to know that the first one relates to food or the second one relates to make-up without you saying so?

An example of a double entendre:

"Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like they've got eleven Dicks on the field."

I do not have to further explain it, unlike your terrible attempt at a triple entendre. If you have to explain and/or justify it then clearly it is not a double/triple entendre.

Can you lick my cock?

1) Can you lick my penis
2) Can you lick my rooster
3) CAN you lick my penis?
4) CAN you lick my rooster?

I HAVE DONE THE IMPOSSIBLE. 4TANDRE.

Not even close. If someone says "can you lick my cock?", it would almost always be taken at it's most vulgar meaning, unless you were holding a chicken in your arms. This barely even qualifies as a double entendre...

[vizzle]

I'm kidding. ~_~ I didn't think someone would expect I actually believed I could make a triple/quadruple entendre in a minute.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

"to lick" can also mean "to whip" as in "give him forty licks" meaning forty hits with a birch rod or whip. Has gone out of service since the abolition of corporal punishment in schools though.

On the topic of double-entendre:
(slightly NSFW, but only because you'll be laughing for the next hour)

[SomeCoolName]

Despite all of the controversy, most scholars and philosophers argue that triple entendres don't actually exist.

-Do you think that triple entendres exist? (Not homophones but ACTUAL triple entendres.)

I quote from wikipedia:
A triple entendre is a phrase that can be understood in any of three ways, such as in the cover of the 1981 Rush album Moving Pictures.
Rush album Moving Pictures:
The left side of the front cover shows a moving company carrying paintings out of a building. On the right side, people are shown crying because the pictures carried by the movers are emotionally "moving". Finally, the back cover features a film crew making a "moving picture" of the whole scene.[2]

GoldenEye
Another example can be observed in the 1995 film GoldenEye, in which the female villain is crushed to death between a tree, to which James Bond quips, "She always did enjoy a good squeeze." This references her death, her method of executing men (crushing them with her legs) and her sexual appetite.[3]

"Bottom of the Fifth"
Another example is a sports bar at the bottom of 5th Street in Benicia, California, named "Bottom of the Fifth", referring to (1) the address, (2) baseball's fifth inning, and (3) a measure of consumption of a common quantity of alcoholic beverage.


Edited for formatting - headers and linebreaks are by me, and not wikipedia.
Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre#Structure

[Deleted]

"to lick" can also mean "to whip" as in "give him forty licks" meaning forty hits with a birch rod or whip. Has gone out of service since the abolition of corporal punishment in schools though.

Used in the right context, that could make a double entendre at best. Definitely not a triple.

It's just like saying:

"I hope that you kids have a gay old time at the park today!"

Only a double entendre...

[Ynna]

Wouldn't a triple entendre be when you say something that could be interpreted differently, but you knew that in advance and actually meant something that's a) not the original meaning and b) not the double entendre meaning?

[Deleted]

I quote from wikipedia:

GoldenEye
Another example can be observed in the 1995 film GoldenEye, in which the female villain is crushed to death between a tree, to which James Bond quips, "She always did enjoy a good squeeze." This references her death, her method of executing men (crushing them with her legs) and her sexual appetite.

Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre#Structure

The main reason why this is not widely accepted as a triple entendre is because it only works in an artificially created environment. Outside of the confines of "Goldeneye", it does not make sense anymore.

I believe scholars are looking for a triple entendre that can be stated and assume 3 different meanings, BUT without any explanation, or specific prior background knowledge, or artificial scenario.

In essence, something you could write anywhere, at any time, and people would still understand.

[Ynna]

The main reason why this is not widely accepted as a triple entendre is because it only works in an artificially created environment. Outside of the confines of "Goldeneye", it does not make sense anymore.

I believe scholars are looking for a triple entendre that can be stated and assume 3 meanings, without any explanation, or specific prior background knowledge, or artificial scenario.

Don't double entendres also need context and background knowledge? I mean, try telling a "that's what she said," joke to an eight year old.

[Deleted]

Don't double entendres also need context and background knowledge? I mean, try telling a "that's what she said," joke to an eight year old.

Legitimate double entendres do not require explanation or elaborate artifical plots/scenarios, such as a movie.
The most impressive sort take the form of a single sentence.

Such as:

-Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

-Drunks Get Nine Months in Violin Case

-Iraqi Head Seeks Arms

-Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus?

If you need to tell a story to prove your double/triple entendre, then you aren't satisfying the true scholarly/philosophical aspect of the feat. Otherwise there would be many widely accepted triple entendres, but as of now, there are NONE.

[poser765]

Legitimate double entendres do not require explanation or elaborate artifical plots/scenarios, such as a movie.
The most impressive sort take the form of a single sentence.

Such as:

-Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

-Drunks Get Nine Months in Violin Case

-Iraqi Head Seeks Arms

-Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus?

If you need to tell a story to prove your double/triple entendre, then you aren't satisfying the true scholarly/philosophical aspect of the feat. Otherwise there would be many widely accepted triple entendres, but as of now, there are NONE.

lol you say that legitimate double entendres require no explanation, but everything you posted to prove that requires some understanding of the context.

Also 3 more things.

1. you are taking this way to seriously. Some of us where being light hearted.
2. are there really scholars searching for a triple entendre like Bob Ballard searching for the titanic.
3. I'm pretty sure what I posted WAS in fact a triple entendre. one phrase...three meanings.

[Xanjori]

"Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like they've got eleven Dicks on the field."

I dont think you can argue that people are bringing stuff with context required and then do a footballer.

[Venant]

Legitimate double entendres do not require explanation or elaborate artifical plots/scenarios, such as a movie.

It would seem that your definition allows for references that are widely recognized within a culture but perhaps not outside of that culture. Wouldn't the possibility for a triple entendre exist in the case that the phrase has a straightforward meaning, a cultural meaning and a meaning that can be understood by somebody outside of the culture. This might work well in the case of an isolated culture that is not up to date on modern uses of certain words.

[ptwonline]

The main reason why this is not widely accepted as a triple entendre is because it only works in an artificially created environment. Outside of the confines of "Goldeneye", it does not make sense anymore.

I believe scholars are looking for a triple entendre that can be stated and assume 3 different meanings, BUT without any explanation, or specific prior background knowledge, or artificial scenario.

In essence, something you could write anywhere, at any time, and people would still understand.

Sounds like a case of special pleading to me.

[poser765]

Sounds like a case of special pleading to me.

I'll buy that.

[Beat5beat]

BUT without any explanation, or specific prior background knowledge, or artificial scenario.

In essence, something you could write anywhere, at any time, and people would still understand.

EVERYTHING requires some previous background knowledge, because everything is based on everything else.

Your baseball entendre requires information in regard to what baseball is. Your police/jaywalker entendre requires information as to what a jaywalker is, what a police officer is. You discount this background information because it's fairly widely known, but it still required background information to be understood. On top of this, there is no situation in the world where EVERYONE will understand it.

"The bottom of the fifth" is a perfect example of a triple entendre, everyone living in that neighborhood would understand it readily. It seems that your hand tailored definition of an entendre requires a wider audience to readily understand it? How large, 1 city? 1 country? 1 planet?

You could take this very simple triple entendre and use it on a more widely known landmark, and now more people would readily understand it, is it now a more valid triple entendre because more people understand it? You just don't seem very logical in your selection criteria for what qualifies as an entendre since you demand everyone else create a triple entendre that requires no prior information (an impossibility for even a double entendre) And then you provide 4 examples that all require prior knowledge (naturally, since any would).

[Chingylol]

Jay-Z is the king of the triple entendre.

[poser765]

"The bottom of the fifth"

I present you with the bottom of the Fifth.