Talk:Panegyric

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redundant[edit]

"and reserved the funeral oration exclusively for the dead"

Isn't this statement tautological? Who but the dead would receive a funeral oration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.138.246 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 October 2011‎

I think it means "and reserved the funeral oration alone for the dead". But I agree, it's (at best) ambiguous as it stands. Perhaps it could be recast as "the panegyric was reserved for the living, while the dead would have only a funeral oration". Thoughts, anyone?

Alec 15:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec.brady (talk • contribs)

That statement is taken directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. What might help here is finding a second source which makes the distinction clearer to contemporary readers. It could also be that they were using "funeral" as an adjective as opposed to a noun, using the meaning "funereal", i.e., sad and serious. This would contrast with the panegyric which, per the Britannica, was meant to be rousing. But I agree, the difference is not at all clear as it is currently written. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alex Brady. Tbat a dated, substandard encyclopedia has been used a source cannot be reasons for not rewording the passage so as to make sense. No second source is required for this. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]