Disparate Commonality: The Non Sequitur, Bon Mot, Quip and Cliche

Words are the invention of thought, and once spoken they become the reality of the mind; when conjoined they bring thought to life as an essay, humor, critique and the hundred more conditions.

Napoleon said there are only two powers in the world, the sword and the pen, and he concluded that the pen will ultimately triumph. This, then, lends a type of credence to the observation that the word is perhaps the most serious, solemn, and somber instrument for society’s salvation that has yet been devised, alliteration notwithstanding.

Indeed, kingdoms have toppled because of a careless word spoken in jest, and it is this consideration that brings us to the essence of this essay. Far too often the word has been accorded a weight not intended. Too often the spoken word has been cast as a villain when further examination would reveal it was at best a bon mot, at worst a simple jest. This exploration into the lighter side of word usage will divulge the essence of the phrase, the clause, the forage into banter, and most essentially that the use of the word, even when joined with seemingly inappropriate syntax, will create or add new thoughts to those with which they are couched.

To notice this is the subject of this essay. While the reader may come up with a dozen more caches of word groupings such as jouterie, dido and badinage- fatuous expressions that have long been consigned to the out-of-usage bin-most lend themselves almost exclusively to the spoken word; japery and allied expressions of comic intent rely on intonation and as such have little impact when in print. Etymological wisdom has determined that the four word groupings noted in the title to this paper embody the predominance of sayings and word-offerings that feature, through their usage, the lighter side of civilization’s record.

It is recognized that normal linguistic use does combine and easily confuse the meaning and uses of these separate conveyances of thought; thus this paper to delineate the individual definitions of each type of word-phrase and demonstrate how they retain their individuality and at the same time, indeed perhaps in the same sentence, can be combined to create new thought.

The four subjects are presented in a ranking order the author deems appropriate. The first word assemblage, if we may, is the most inscrutable, while at the same moment lending itself to scrutability and thus is the most easily positioned locution for humor and light exposition. This delightful manner of phrasing has “come home” so to speak in recent critiques (i.e., this writer’s essays: The Definition of the Non Sequitur, and The Ultimate Non Sequitur).

The Non Sequitur seemingly retains a single although disparate clarity of purpose, yet in another instance it becomes exponible. It is the single word-grouping of the four presented in this paper that can be used with or without a “launch pad” so to speak, it being Latin for “does not follow.” Thus, one can find the Non Sequitur phrase following a sentence, clause, or phrase, or see it standing alone to declaim in opposition to a preceding paragraph, or simply as a confusing thought in itself. When following a complete clause the “does not follow” and apparent aberrant phrasing will seem connected, and yet can at once appear to be a disparate element within the context of the material. An example (although not found in my recent publication: The Babble Book, 365 Non Sequiturs to Live By) in its purest form is:

We walk a fine line in life; an ant hill is a complicated structure.

As may be obvious, a conundrum develops within the second phrase because it has its own independence with a subject and predicate. This particular idiom becomes a poser because the follow-on Non Sequitur descriptive clause could possibly be supporting the introductory phrase, and yet it struggles as logic. It also allows other meanings to be found within the phrase, giving rise to other postulations-ergo, the pure Non Sequitur.

The Bon Mot takes the second ranking, albeit of the French language. In addition to their viticulture arts and possibly culinary accomplishments, the French have given the world substantive contributions in delightful phraseology developed in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Literally, Bon Mot means “good word”, but literal translations most often lose the essence of meaning found in the original language. In French these words connote witticism, a happily turned phrase, an artful combination of words that delight, and gratuitous compliments. An example of a complete Bon Mot of the latter style:

Your presence delights the senses and stimulates my heart’s emotions.

As may be obvious to Francophiles, such a sentence conjures up an 18th Century “dandy” coming up to a lovely woman strolling in the park, removing his broad-brimmed and feathered hat with a flourish and a sweeping bow. He utters the above compliment in a low voice only for her ears and she blushes at his grace. You can easily see how the Bon Mot allows for pleasant conjuring, and at the same instantly suggests an implication beyond flattery.

The rather common Quip takes third place on the list of disparate words with a commonality, although lexicographers align it with both the negative “scoff” and the positive “joke.” The Quip most often stands alone, especially when it is used humorously. It is often seen narrowly as “banter” and yet when spoken in such a context it can often have a double intent-the joke and the scoff-which reason it is given both assignments by linguistic anthropologists. For our purposes, however, it is the jokester to whom we shall turn, not wishing to support the negative potential.

His suit is so sharp he is on the cutting edge of style.

One can easily see that a “pun” (another form of wit) is the vehicle by which the above Quip is successful, and yet it has a delight standing on its own. One can also see that this seemingly casual comment could also be taken as a barb. Truly, the essence of the Quip is it contains the predominant humorous element yet offers a veiled potential as a jape.

Finally we come to the ubiquitous and much maligned Cliché. This form of idiom has been developing for centuries, each culture adding to the pile through endless usage, with the end nowhere in sight. It is noteworthy, however, to realize that this style of phrasing comes about because of common usage, but when a new and pungent observation is declared that has the potential as a lasting Cliché, it is usually taken as a witty, even charming expression. Banality comes with age as well as usage, and most linguists would be caught with their syntax down were they heard to be saying:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

This Cliché, incidentally, comes from a 19th Century British grouse hunting expression, and at the time “said it all” when the hunter returned to his cottage with but one small bird to show for a day’s stalking through field and stream. As such it can easily be aligned with many other situations such as the seamstress’ “a stitch in time saves nine.” It also should be obvious to the reader that the Cliché easily lends itself to the Non Sequitur, and is often applied as such by the jester in a group. An example is, “On the other hand, the cream of the crop can spoil.” (It can be “a show stopper” when following someone’s pretentious prognostication.)

The four representations in this exposition to note their disparate commonality will hopefully give the reader pause as well as provide meaning. We are certain the reader has already assigned the title of this essay as an oxymoron-in itself another form of witticism. To the literati we can say: On one hand erudition is its own reward, and on the other, to paraphrase Shakespeare, the above may be considered “full of sound and fury, signifying…something?”

Oh, Lord what complexities we weave when first we practice to perceive.