I agree that it's implying that she's only wearing silk pants and a smile. The rest of the text would probably clarify this if we knew it.We don't usually say "to wear a smile". But it's been used here to emphasise that she's not wearing anything except the silk pants.
Ah, yes. Coiffe is talking about ambiguity when he posted the statement. He's also referring to the comparison of two very different things (pants and smiles). The ambiguity is exactly what we are struggling with in this thread, Mimi. There are lots of implications in the statement but it is very ambiguous and without more information, we are forced to form our own opinions.
It's so ambiguous that it's not possible to declare, unequivocally, "she's not wearing ONLY silk pants and a smile".Believe me when I say she's not wearing ONLY silk pants and a smile. Alone, it does not imply anything. It completely depends on the context. It's too ambiguous to imply anything on its own.
Thank you! I was racking my brain for this word ... of course it's actually syllepsis, as was noted already, a type of zeugma (which just means yoking) which creates a semantic incongruity which is often humorous, i.e.Hi, coiffe,
I think all your four examples are use of 'zeugma', which isn't about ambiguity so much as simple word-play, usually for humour. Another famous example is 'she left in a huff and a sedan chair'. Flanders and Swann also used it in 'Madera, M'Dear' in a line which goes something like 'putting out the lamp, his cigar and the cat' (only I may have the order wrong!)