| |
|
It's a form of apophasis, I believe. Apophasis (literally, "speaking away from"), or in Latin praeteritio (going besides) is the device of identifiying something about which you will not talk, thus:
"It is not relevant to this court's consideration that the plaintiff is a wife-beater, a drunk, a liar, a cad and a regular player of the pink oboe."
The form you're using there is a kind of aporia, also. Aporia ("resourcelessness") is the act of confessing ignorance of something or an inability to reach a conclusion. You can use it perfectly innocently, to tie off a discussion point you don't want or have time to get into, or to identify something you are not sure of, but it can also be used to distance yourself from an accusation or insinuation - just like apophasis, where you don't have to look like you're throwing mud - "Is he a fraud? I couldn't tell you. Is a man who takes money from the pockets and food from the plates of the people who love him and gives nothing back a fraud? That's too big a question for me". You don't have to have your finger on the trigger. Or, for example:
"Whether he raped them then killed them, or killed them then raped them... well, gosh, I just don't know. But I do know that he was found in the hut with the bodies."
Here, two possible and groteaque activities are suggested, and while ignorance of which is true is admitted, the possibility of another explanation is precluded.
These are insinuations and innuendi, also, of course, and they might well be passive-agressive. They are not straw men - that's rather different. |
|
|
