<p><strong>頂真</strong> is a rhetoric method to make sentences reading more smoothly or meaning more tightly.<br />
<strong>The connected words should be the same meaning</strong>. Check the following examples:</p>
<ul>
<li>將軍百戰死，壯士十年<strong>歸</strong>。<strong>歸</strong>來見<strong>天子</strong>，<strong>天子</strong>坐明堂: 歸-&gt;come back, 天子-&gt;emperor</li>
<li>江南可採<strong>蓮</strong>，<strong>蓮</strong>葉何田田: 蓮-&gt;lotus</li>
<li>我出了村就<strong>過了河</strong>，<strong>過了河</strong>就進了城: 過了河-&gt;across the river</li>
</ul>
<p>But for your example like:</p>
<ul>
<li>度 is part of India (印度) on the left and means &quot;passing&quot; on the right.</li>
<li>光 is part of &quot;time&quot; (時光) on the left and part of the adverb &quot;just&quot; (光是) on the right.</li>
</ul>
<p>These above should not be counted as proper anadiplosis rhetoric method, maybe only <strong>历</strong> (<strong>past</strong> meaning in general).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-19T02:13:43.940Z
Thanks for your answer! Do you have any reference supporting your conclusion?
Zuriel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-19T02:53:55.050Z
Well, I just checked with my friend who is major in Chinese in University. She gave the 2 reasons: (1) 頂真 has an implicit function that the object in first sentence will be the subject in second sentence, making the whole paragraph context more connected and tightly. (2) If something like "北韓" -> "韓先生" could be 頂真, how about I replace "北韓"  with "朝鮮" while "北韓" = "朝鮮"?
Conifers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-19T03:00:20.440Z
But if you only consider phonology, the example you provide is 頂真 for sure. However the Chinese rhetoric usually consider the meanings, like 譬喻(Simile or Metaphor), 借代(Metonymy), 擬人/轉化(Personification)
Conifers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-19T04:01:01.447Z
Thank you! I failed to find the requirement on meaning at wikipedia, and am wondering if the requirement can be found in some authoritative grammar book.
Zuriel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-18T07:20:08.830Z
2020-08-06T14:21:42.900Z
2020-08-06T14:21:42.900Z
Conifers
<p>In &quot;顶真&quot;, one uses a word near the end of the clause and then repeats that word to begin the next clause. For example, 忽聞海上有仙<strong>山</strong>，<strong>山</strong>在虛無縹緲間.</p>
<p>What if the same character repeats but means differently in different clauses? Is it still considered as &quot;顶真&quot;？</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>旅行社刚刚开<strong>张</strong>，<strong>张</strong>三就去了印<strong>度</strong>，<strong>度</strong>过了一段美好的时<strong>光</strong>，<strong>光</strong>是恒河就去了好几<strong>次</strong>，<strong>次</strong>年又去了日<strong>本</strong>，<strong>本</strong>来是很好的经<strong>历</strong>，<strong>历</strong>时一年有<strong>余</strong>，<strong>余</strong>与他一路同<strong>行</strong>，<strong>行</strong>了我编不下去了。</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Edit</strong>:</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A1%B6%E7%9C%9F" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>, (顶真) &quot;是指上句的結尾與下句的開頭使用相同的字或詞，用以修飾兩句子的聲韻方法。需要注意的是，使用這個方式時，毋須限制上下句的字數或平仄，但上下句交接點一定要使用相同的字或詞&quot;。</p>
<p>It seems to me that only the same character (or word) is required but not necessarily the same meaning.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-19T07:47:36.983Z
Yes I 've also noticed the wiki definition same as your edit, however I couldn't find any example like(日本->本來 or 印度->度過), so I asked my friend to check these, and got a "possibly not a 頂真" answer.
Conifers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-20T05:51:40.140Z
The last charactor before and the first charator later do not mean the same thing, especially, 余 (remaings, should be 馀 in Simplified Chinese formally, or 餘 in Traditional Chinese) and 余 (me) are not the same charactor in Traditional Chinese.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-21T01:11:06.943Z
@賈可Jacky, it is an interesting scenario that they are the same in simplified Chinese, but not in traditional Chinese. It seems to me that simplified Chinese has "merged" some characters.
Zuriel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-21T01:12:15.037Z
@Conifers, I understand that Wiki is by no means the only authority. But what do authoritative grammar books say? Do they have a requirement on meaning?
Zuriel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T06:39:08.827Z
I found this where refers 《修辭學》written by a professor: https://web.archive.org/web/20090123034921/http://longlife.ymhs.tyc.edu.tw/chinese/literary_data/rhetoric/rhetoric%20page.htm#26 The definition is simple, only to care about the words or characters but not the meaning. The example you provide is a bit weird but seems not violate the anadiplosis definition... (Maybe I need to modify my answer? :P)
Conifers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T06:45:18.157Z
And anadiplosis seems be defined in recent centuries or decades. In ancient China, like 賦（直述）、比（譬喻）、興（聯想）is discussed in Han dynasty, or 文心雕龍 written in The Wei, Chin Southern and Northern Dynasties, has no definition about anadiplosis.
Conifers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T07:20:49.123Z
@Zuriel There are two cases of the merged characters in Simplified Chinese.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T07:21:11.927Z
@Zuriel 1. Some traditional Chinese characters are merged to one single character, the single character may either a newly created one that does not exists in traditional Chinese or one of the original characters. The merged traditional characters does not necessarily map to simplified characters one by one unless that they are the same one in both traditional and simplified Chinese.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T07:21:23.813Z
@Zuriel for example: The characters 干, 幹 and a part meaning of 乾 are merged to 干 which already exists in traditional Chinese. Howerver, the characters 複 and 復, and a part meaning of 覆 are merged to 复 which is a new simplified character.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T07:22:23.630Z
@Zuriel 2. Some traditional Chinese characters are merged to one of the original characters which covers the meaning of all merged characters while other characters are also simplified and still can be used individually.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T07:22:36.400Z
@Zuriel for example: The characters 余 and 餘 are simplified to 余, there are also a simplified character 馀 for 餘, though 余 covers the meaning of 余 and 馀. There is another similar pair, 面 and 麵 are simplified to 面, there are also a simplified character 麺 for 麵, though 面 covers the meaning of 面 and 麺.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-23T07:34:48.987Z
@Zuriel Usage in traditional Chinese: 余: me (objective case, in ancient Chinese); 餘: the remaining, the rest; 面: face, side, surface; 麵: flour, wheat meal; Usage in simplified Chinese: 余: all meanings of 余 and 餘 in traditional Chinese; 馀: the same as 餘 in traditional Chinese, formal form but rarely used yet; 面: all meanings of 面 and 麵 in traditional Chinese; 麺: the same as 麵 in traditional Chinese, formal form but rarely used yet;
xenophōn
<terminology><ambiguity><rhetoric>
Is it considered as anadiplosis (顶真) when the same character repeats but means differently?
# Is it considered as anadiplosis (顶真) when the same character repeats but means differently?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-17)

In "顶真", one uses a word near the end of the clause and then repeats that word to begin the next clause. For example, 忽聞海上有仙**山**，**山**在虛無縹緲間.

What if the same character repeats but means differently in different clauses? Is it still considered as "顶真"？

For example:

> 旅行社刚刚开**张**，**张**三就去了印**度**，**度**过了一段美好的时**光**，**光**是恒河就去了好几**次**，**次**年又去了日**本**，**本**来是很好的经**历**，**历**时一年有**余**，**余**与他一路同**行**，**行**了我编不下去了。

**Edit**:

According to [Wikipedia](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A1%B6%E7%9C%9F), (顶真) "是指上句的結尾與下句的開頭使用相同的字或詞，用以修飾兩句子的聲韻方法。需要注意的是，使用這個方式時，毋須限制上下句的字數或平仄，但上下句交接點一定要使用相同的字或詞"。

It seems to me that only the same character (or word) is required but not necessarily the same meaning.

**Tags:** terminology, ambiguity, rhetoric

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Yes I 've also noticed the wiki definition same as your edit, however I couldn't find any example like(日本->本來 or 印度->度過), so I asked my friend to check these, and got a "possibly not a 頂真" answer.  
> **username_2**: The last charactor before and the first charator later do not mean the same thing, especially, 余 (remaings, should be 馀 in Simplified Chinese formally, or 餘 in Traditional Chinese) and 余 (me) are not the same charactor in Traditional Chinese.  
> **username_0**: @賈可Jacky, it is an interesting scenario that they are the same in simplified Chinese, but not in traditional Chinese. It seems to me that simplified Chinese has "merged" some characters.  
> **username_0**: @username_1, I understand that Wiki is by no means the only authority. But what do authoritative grammar books say? Do they have a requirement on meaning?  
> **username_1**: I found this where refers 《修辭學》written by a professor: https://web.archive.org/web/20090123034921/http://longlife.ymhs.tyc.edu.tw/chinese/literary_data/rhetoric/rhetoric%20page.htm#26 The definition is simple, only to care about the words or characters but not the meaning. The example you provide is a bit weird but seems not violate the anadiplosis definition... (Maybe I need to modify my answer? :P)  
> **username_1**: And anadiplosis seems be defined in recent centuries or decades. In ancient China, like 賦（直述）、比（譬喻）、興（聯想）is discussed in Han dynasty, or 文心雕龍 written in The Wei, Chin Southern and Northern Dynasties, has no definition about anadiplosis.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 There are two cases of the merged characters in Simplified Chinese.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 1. Some traditional Chinese characters are merged to one single character, the single character may either a newly created one that does not exists in traditional Chinese or one of the original characters. The merged traditional characters does not necessarily map to simplified characters one by one unless that they are the same one in both traditional and simplified Chinese.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 for example: The characters 干, 幹 and a part meaning of 乾 are merged to 干 which already exists in traditional Chinese. Howerver, the characters 複 and 復, and a part meaning of 覆 are merged to 复 which is a new simplified character.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 2. Some traditional Chinese characters are merged to one of the original characters which covers the meaning of all merged characters while other characters are also simplified and still can be used individually.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 for example: The characters 余 and 餘 are simplified to 余, there are also a simplified character 馀 for 餘, though 余 covers the meaning of 余 and 馀. There is another similar pair, 面 and 麵 are simplified to 面, there are also a simplified character 麺 for 麵, though 面 covers the meaning of 面 and 麺.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Usage in traditional Chinese: 余: me (objective case, in ancient Chinese); 餘: the remaining, the rest; 面: face, side, surface; 麵: flour, wheat meal; Usage in simplified Chinese: 余: all meanings of 余 and 餘 in traditional Chinese; 馀: the same as 餘 in traditional Chinese, formal form but rarely used yet; 面: all meanings of 面 and 麵 in traditional Chinese; 麺: the same as 麵 in traditional Chinese, formal form but rarely used yet;  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-09-18. Score: 4

**頂真** is a rhetoric method to make sentences reading more smoothly or meaning more tightly.  
**The connected words should be the same meaning**. Check the following examples:

* 將軍百戰死，壯士十年**歸**。**歸**來見**天子**，**天子**坐明堂: 歸->come back, 天子->emperor
* 江南可採**蓮**，**蓮**葉何田田: 蓮->lotus
* 我出了村就**過了河**，**過了河**就進了城: 過了河->across the river

But for your example like:

* 度 is part of India (印度) on the left and means "passing" on the right.
* 光 is part of "time" (時光) on the left and part of the adverb "just" (光是) on the right.

These above should not be counted as proper anadiplosis rhetoric method, maybe only **历** (**past** meaning in general).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for your answer! Do you have any reference supporting your conclusion?  
> **username_1**: Well, I just checked with my friend who is major in Chinese in University. She gave the 2 reasons: (1) 頂真 has an implicit function that the object in first sentence will be the subject in second sentence, making the whole paragraph context more connected and tightly. (2) If something like "北韓" -> "韓先生" could be 頂真, how about I replace "北韓"  with "朝鮮" while "北韓" = "朝鮮"?  
> **username_1**: But if you only consider phonology, the example you provide is 頂真 for sure. However the Chinese rhetoric usually consider the meanings, like 譬喻(Simile or Metaphor), 借代(Metonymy), 擬人/轉化(Personification)  
> **username_0**: Thank you! I failed to find the requirement on meaning at wikipedia, and am wondering if the requirement can be found in some authoritative grammar book.  

---

