Technicalities: Reverse order word pair

[Svrtnsse]

Something came up in a discussion with a test reader recently, and it's the topic of word pairs and how they have to be in the correct order.
It was pointed out that in my story I'd written "pans and pots" where the correct version is supposed to be "pots and pans."

Today I went to check this passage and do the correction and I paused to think about it. Are there times when a word pair isn't a word pair but just the words of the word pair written together?

The sentence in question is:

The pans and pots still needed hanging up[...]​

To me it feels like pots and pans is a reference to cooking containers in general, while in this case the pans and pots refers to the specific pans and the specific pots that are in need of hanging up. Would it make a difference if it read the pans and the pots?

I'm not opposed to changing the original sentence. What I'm curious about is whether there are situations where a word pair isn't a word pair?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

On the one hand, as a reader I could care less about the word order here.

As a writer, it depends. “Pans and pots” is going to draw the attention of a lot of readers because of the reversed order. Are the pots and pans unimportant or are they really worthy drawing attention to? If it’s just a blow by description, I’d consider going to pots and pans, no need for the reader to have their reader engine stall while asking “pans and pots?” but if I really want those pans and pots to stand out, I’d keep it the way you have it.

The specific/nonspecific might ring true, but meh. All and all, either way, doesn’t bug me.

 

[skip.knox]

It would distract me, but that's neither there nor here.

I do think reversing word pairs, if done with a good eye, might be a nice way to give a little different feel to the dialog of a non-human character. But in ordinary narrative it would only read like the author goofed and the editor missed it.

 

[TheKillerBs]

This is one of those things I most likely wouldn't notice, but would really annoy me if I did or someone pointed it out to me.

 

[Penpilot]

In this specific instance, it wouldn't bother me either way.

 

[Ankari]

Something related to this phenomenon was shared on Reddit. It's called ablaut reduplication. The basic rule states we naturally will speak words which contain the vowels I A O in that order. So we would say bish, bash, bosh. To say it any way doesn't sound natural. Similarly, If there are two words, you would say the I word before A or O. That is why we say tick tock.

But what, pots has an O and pans has an A!

Well, they are spelled that way, but pronounced differently. The O in pots is a high(ish) vowel, while the A in pans is a low vowel. High or low is determined by where your tongue us located in your mouth to produce the sound. We tend to speak high vowel words before low vowel words. That is what the I A O order is supposed to represent. Speak each vowel and notice where your tongue is. Now speak pots and pans and notice where your tongue is. You'll note your tongue is in the middle of your mouth when you say pots and at the bottom of your mouth when you say pans.

 

[skip.knox]

Ablaut reduplication is absolutely a phrase I'm using at my next party, though it's all just pish posh.

Is an ablaut related to an umlaut? This lout's an ablaut roundabout the umlaut. That's what it's all about. I'm out.

 

[CupofJoe]

I'd go for o before a but I think Skip as a point if you wanted to use the different order to make another point.

That is why we say tick tock..

Er... I think they are looking for a relationship that doesn't exist. Someone need to listen to really OLD [hand tooled] clocks. The first sound is the sound of an arrested movement, it is hard and staccato, the "Tick", the next sound is a release, it is still a hard sound but slightly longer, the "Tock". Then there is the fractionally longer gap before the next pair of sounds. Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.
At least in English, but I think it is pretty universal, but did other cultures learn the words from Europe? That I don't know.

 

[Geo]

I will simply like to say, that cliches lurk everywhere and pairing words in a particular order (e.g., head to toes; twists and turns, up and down) is nothing but giving up to the resounding pull of familiarity. In the same way that we can -and should- find new ways to say "my heart skip a bit," or "time will tell" (two well know cliches) paring words in an unexpected order, or choosing pairs that are not as familiar to everybody, enriches our writing. Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for chaos and novelty for novelty sake, but if the order you choose for the pair came to you organically (so to say), why should yo get rid of it simply because is not the common way? Familiarity is given by repetition over time, the moment we stop repeating things, they stop being familiar. So why not to start creating new paths and new ways?

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Something came up in a discussion with a test reader recently, and it's the topic of word pairs and how they have to be in the correct order.
It was pointed out that in my story I'd written "pans and pots" where the correct version is supposed to be "pots and pans."

Today I went to check this passage and do the correction and I paused to think about it. Are there times when a word pair isn't a word pair but just the words of the word pair written together?

The sentence in question is:

The pans and pots still needed hanging up[...]​

To me it feels like pots and pans is a reference to cooking containers in general, while in this case the pans and pots refers to the specific pans and the specific pots that are in need of hanging up. Would it make a difference if it read the pans and the pots?

I'm not opposed to changing the original sentence. What I'm curious about is whether there are situations where a word pair isn't a word pair?

"Pans and pots" makes me really uncomfortable and I don't know why.

 

[Devor]

If it were me, I would go with something like two pans and a pot...

I once referred to Eve and Adam in an essay and it did not go over well even though I did it on purpose.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

If it were me, I would go with something like two pans and a pot...

I once referred to Eve and Adam in an essay and it did not go over well even though I did it on purpose.

Clark and Lewis. Garfunkel and Simon. Robin and Batman.

I'm making my own skin crawl.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Thanks for the comments everyone.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

My thought is that this is basically an issue of familiarity. We're used to saying pots and pans, so to say pans and pots is jarring. It takes you out of your comfortable reading rut. And most people when they read a book simply want to enjoy the book. They don't want to be jarred. So the question is - why do it? My thought is stick with the familiar unless you have a specific reason for wanting to jar your reader.

To give a petrol head example, anyone who's driven a Ford - at least in New Zealand, knows that they made a horrific mistake with some of their models. Every other car for donkey's years had the indicator stalk on the right side of the wheel and the wiper stalk on the left. That was simply the way it was done. (Unless of course you drove a Citroen in which case anything could be anywhere!) On some models Ford changed them. They still worked perfectly. You could still operate them. But oh dear lord how many times did we turn on the bloody wipers every time we wanted to turn a corner?!!! The point is that you don't change things for the sake of changing them. You should always have a reason. Otherwise you're just going to bug your readers / customers.

Cheers, Greg.