In couplet culture, what is a heartless couple, and what kinds are there?

The art of China's couplets has a long history, which can be described as extensive and profound, and unfeeling is one of them, which has its unique charm.

Generally speaking, different kinds of couplets have different functions, some describe the scenery, some argue, and some distinguish right from wrong. However, as a heartless couple, they originated from joking with traditional couplets, and their biggest purpose is to "make you smile". The heartless man said to the cunning old tradition, "Don't you want to fight?" All right! I fight hard! Word for word! Even so, I still want to be angry with your nose! "How did a loveless couple achieve their goal? Look at its meaning:

1, the upper and lower work is stable, but the words are reversed.

First of all, pay attention to the stability of the work, such as a famous traditional couplet:

Castle Peak has the honor of burying loyal bones = = = = White iron casts innocent courtiers.

This is a good couplet, but strictly speaking, mountains are equal to iron-couplets are not acceptable. And if there is no love, we should try to avoid this situation.

It has been said that it is difficult to create if you are strict with your work. Don't! Because God is tactful, after closing one door, he will open another window, that is, word for word.

First of all, we should make it clear that "every word" is antithesis, and other conjunctions allow "word" to be antithesis, which is why there are few conjunctions in sentences without feelings (not absolute, which I will mention later). Because it is the antithesis of words, it seems to restrict creation more. Actually, it's just the opposite. As we all know, Chinese characters have a characteristic, which is ambiguity. For example, in Advanced Chinese Dictionary, adjectives have 20 explanations, verbs have 13 explanations, nouns have 13 explanations and adverbs have 2 explanations, which add up to * *. So many explanations can be used, not restricted by the internet! So, much better:). In contrast, other conjunctions are not so free. Generally, it is necessary to limit the specific interpretation of the word in the sentence, and other explanations unrelated to the sentence cannot be used.

Give me a simple example:

Bright moon = = =

Like other conjunctions, if you want to get the word "Ming" right, you must limit the interpretation of "Ming" in the sentence "Yue Ming"-the definition is the adjective part of speech and the definition is "Ming", so you can't use the interpretation of other adjectives, such as: wise, clear and obvious, and you can't use other explanations of different parts of speech, such as

As a heartless couple, you can find one of the 48 explanations of "Ming" and get the correct one at will. There is no restriction on this word in the sentence, just treat it as an isolated word. What about me? I'm interested in:

Bright Moon = = = Summer

There is no limit to the interpretation of the word "Ming" in the sentence here. The meaning of the Ming Dynasty with the noun "Ming" is positive, and Ming = Xia Dynasty is relative. This technique is called "borrowing".

Some people will ask, if so, won't it lead to a mismatch between the upper and lower sentences? That's right. In fact, not only the part of speech, but also the structure and rhythm can be ignored. Not only that, the weirder the better. Let me give you another simple example:

Turn a blind eye = = =

Is the batter out? What do you think?

Ha ha, I am like this:

Turn a blind eye = = = Business is not easy to do, not only part of speech, but also the structure and rhythm here have changed:).

2. Deviation from up and down, meaning is contrary to meaning. (The so-called couplets are usually linked together, and vice versa, but they must be right, but they cannot be linked together. Not only can it not be linked, but the farther away it is, the better. It is impossible to explain this correlation. It better have nothing to do with this.

Give me a homemade example:

Withdraw = = =

As you can imagine, on the basis of duality, the farther the meaning, the better. In layman's terms, the funnier the better.

Here are a few imaginary possible reactions, let's analyze them.

A, shrinking one's hand = = extending one's head (failure, hard work, hard work, but this is not heartless, and the upper and lower words are the same in part of speech and structure. As a result, it obviously won't make you laugh)

B, shrinking hands = = = lame (passing, words are relative, but the ending of lame is a big defect)

C, shrink your hand = = = Don't worry (yes, in all aspects, but from the opposite intention, it seems insufficient, so the funny function is not fully exerted)

D, shrinking hands = = = Wotou (excellent, good in all aspects, how about it? Have you ever eaten corn steamed bread? Did you laugh? Not laughing? Dare!

:)))

C- don't worry, it's obviously not as funny as D-Wotou. Why? It is because, unexpectedly, it is food:)), which is irrelevant.

As far as the contradiction between meaning and intention is concerned, it is not an absolute concept. Sometimes we need to appreciate it, just like drinking tea.

Creation without feelings is not good.

What I see on the Internet are mostly short sentences. Even if it is long, the upper part is mostly indecent-elegance here means that people can react almost immediately as long as they see the upper part-which is definitely not suitable for pressing right, so it is indecent. Note: this weakens the effect of unfeeling on sudden peak to some extent.

Another situation is that there is no love, but the last sentence is indecent, but the next sentence is correct with elegant sentences-the response of this next sentence is to accept a few more sentences to achieve the effect of refreshing applause. This kind is rare.

It can be said that the upper and lower sentences are indecent-at this point, this heartless pair has fallen off.

Super loveless features:

1, first of all, we must meet the basic requirements, that is, words are relative and meaning is separated.

2. The part of speech, structure and rhythm of the upper and lower sentences should be subverted.

There can be no connection between the upper and lower sentences.

4, the upper and lower sentences can not appear in order to accommodate the corresponding sentences and far-fetched words-carving, but do not show traces.

5, not less than 5 words

6. The upper and lower sentences should be harmonious.

Basically, the above characteristics are increasing in difficulty, but the relationship between them is interpenetrating. For heartless creators, the degree of hardship is much greater than that of ordinary couplets. The so-called: I am willing to work hard for your smile, hehe, this is simply Comrade Lei Feng, which is too far from the point.

For example:

Poor Qing Hui Pan Chun Qian = = = =

This couplet is passable, so you can treat it as a general couplet and respond gracefully. Actually, it's true. I made this pair in a chat room, and it was all like that without explanation. But what if I do it in a different way?

Haha, please see:

Poor Qinghui Pan Chun moved to drive = = = = Ireland, Greece and Norway

Don't hit me, I'm verbatim, so take a good look:)

Give another example:

The moon is shaking in the sky = = =

So is this one. Don't rush to see my bottom line. Think about it, too. How can it be unexpected? Maybe you are better than me.

Mine? I did this. By the way, have you eaten? If you are eating or drinking water, I suggest you swallow your mouth first and keep calm.

The moon is shaking in the sky = = = = Tangshan earthquake is coming *-%# #

There are really two ways to get love. One way is to get it occasionally, such as the widely circulated' really irrelevant' duality, which is rare and very coincidental. One is to create it yourself.

I have a basic view that loveless couples can be attributed to humorous culture. Based on this, I advocate the self-creation of loveless couples-as if I had written a joke, it felt good:).

I saw a situation in QQ couplets. By the way, criticize it. The questioner makes sentences (which are short in most cases)-pointing out that he is heartless, but the author doesn't have his own sentences. How did this happen? I sometimes encounter such a situation, and the result of scratching my scalp is ridiculous-the writer himself has no confrontation. It should be noted that the response of ruthless couplets is different from other couplets. When there is a sentence in other couplets, there is usually a corresponding antithesis. The screenwriter can only make the last sentence and give the next sentence to the opposite family. But heartlessness is different, totally different! When loveless couples appear in pairs, at least the player should have a satisfactory bottom line.

As we all know, social life is very tense now. Couplets have become a seemingly fashionable thing online, but what about offline? I don't know how many people can still remember to make fun of' Fengyun three-foot sword = flowers and birds a bed of books' when they are nervous, or find a family to say to him, "Friends, the pear flower garden melts the moon!" -I suggest that friends who have this opportunity hide, and don't let the National Security Bureau find out, and there will be things that live on empty land soon:)

At least, I rarely have the opportunity to show off in front of everyone, even if there are few occasions for me to sing, such as' lotus root = apricot without plum'.

But not without love. Affection has both literary elegance and humorous effect, which is really a rare good thing. For professional writers, they may be dismissive of the heartless couple, and elegant halls may even crowd out the heartless couple. What's the harm?

I'm afraid we still have to spend a lot of time socializing in the office and on the wine table. If there is no love here, the scenery will be outstanding, so let's not go to Yatang. I prefer telling jokes to my friends and colleagues, which can relieve tension, help my work and make me feel good. Why not? More fun, more humor in life, or awesome literature? Tell me, why don't I shout for that heartless couple:)

If couplets can be popularized from online to offline, I think the heartless couple must be Depth Charge:) At least in my circle, at present, the effect is good. I wrote a lot. Watch it again. Seems to be beside the point? Haha, whatever, maybe, I should have a bigger idea: [heartless pair and humorous culture], or [let heartless pair be the pioneer of rushing out of the Internet]:)

==================================================

Again, several heartless couples, posted, as I said earlier, conjunctions are used to supplement heartless couples:

Olive Thinking = = = Portuguese-Olives and grapes are fruits and conjunctions. Olives don't have to be picked separately here.

Peerless = = = A hundred years of solitude-a good book, recommended for reading.

The map of Switzerland is not good. Switzerland is too small and stingy, unlike our great motherland.

A thousand thoughts = = = duodenum-important organ, function? Well, this. . . You are the only one who has love!

I am bent on being kind = =-I guess this guy who is bent on being kind is a Buddhist, so I narrowed it down and fell on his back. This kind of sleeping position is not good and ugly, and it is not recommended to follow suit.

Ask, ask how much you care = = = study, study solid geometry-how are you doing? This solid geometry is a compulsory course for Fauvism. If you are interested in Fauvism, you must learn it.

This new couplet = = = They are old rivals-who is who? Who is right? It is you! Still watching? I am talking about you! :)

From Xiaoyu community in Xiamen