This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Synecdoche article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I need to do some research before I make any changes here, but I believe it is incorrect to say that Synecdoche is a form of Metonymy. Though closely related, I believe they are distinct figures of speech.
A Metonymy replaces the (dare I say) literal with something associated with the literal, vis:(this statement is close yet merly true, a metonymy substitutes a symbol for whole synechdoche in other words a part of a whole.)lets just say the idea is correct but the phrasement had been a little off.
"Can I have another cup?" When you are asking for more coffee.
"Nice mouth!" When you are retorting the cuss words used in a flame.
A Synecdoche, by contrast, replaces the (here I go again) literal with (basically) either a part of the something, or the whole class to which the something belongs. Vis:
Part put for whole: "His feet are swift to shed blood." More than his feet are at fault for his evil ways; he is.
Whole put for part: "Everyone hates her." In truth, only the speaker and perhaps the speaker's friends, from among the inhabitants of the whole earth, hate her.
Ten-Four. "All hands on deck" is a great Synecdoche! It is a better example to illustrate the figure of speech too, when a part is put for the whole. A part, the crewmen's "hands" are put figuratively to represent the crewmen.
"His feet are swift to shed blood" contains at least one more figure, a type of Metonymy called Metalepsis or Double Metonymy, where "to shed blood" is put for "to kill" or "to murder." Multiple figures make the statement deeper, but too complex when trying to isolate a good example of a single figure.
Bullinger bears looking at on the subject of Synecdoche. His Figures of Speech Used in the Bible identifies 4 types: 1) Synecdoche of the genus, 2) Synecdoche of the species, 3) Synecdoche of the whole, and 4) Synecdoche of the part. user:jstanley01
I'd call the cup question an ellipsis, and the everyone indefinite. lysdexia 00:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another good example is "Lend me your ears" Calling someone to listen. "Give me a hand" also works. A whole person is needed to help, not just a hand.
Baseball bats are made of ash, not hickory. Knife handles are made of hickory.
-- Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that synecdoches should not be listed as a form of metonymy (aka similies are a form of metaphors). They are related but represent two distinct forms of reference rather than one being a superset of the other. yes its true that the synecdoche is a part of a metonymy, yet we could better say that the metonymy has a synechdohe integrated. Wikipedia is not an opinion page, OP. No one cares what you agree with.
So.. the 'doche' part comes from the Greek for "I accept" ... so "okey-dokey" actually means what it means? not just reduplication? or is that just a coinky-dink?
@
Unbh: you wrote none of this is in the lede. All is unsourced
. The lede says "it is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole (pars pro toto), or vice versa (
totum pro parte)."
My edit added a subtitle to reflect this, and some bullets taken directly from our existing article Totum pro parte.
Please can you explain what you are objecting to?
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The rose left between the pages of a book was the one that a man gave to the love of his heart, and she held it there to keep her remembering him, the moment, the vibrant colour of the rose and it's smell, the ringing beat of her heart and the rest she wanted to remember till she dies. Time passing, the rose gets dry, looses her colour and fragrance, but can still bring back much of the memory. When both of them die, descendents may have kept the book with the rose for remembering their ancestors they possibly loved, but it had brought not the same memories back to them as did to original couple, and carried a different meaning for them. They may have written the story as I have done here, and several next generation were introduced to that family traditions and understood it. But if that family lost that tradition (or died out) and enough time passed that language and culture changed enough, when somebody found that story the written word rose might in the extreme have no more meaning, but just the name left.
In 1978 Fairchild Corporation (then it's parent corporation) destroyed corporate archive of Republic Aviation [1], les then a decade after death of the original founder and owner Fairchild died.
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Synecdoche article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I need to do some research before I make any changes here, but I believe it is incorrect to say that Synecdoche is a form of Metonymy. Though closely related, I believe they are distinct figures of speech.
A Metonymy replaces the (dare I say) literal with something associated with the literal, vis:(this statement is close yet merly true, a metonymy substitutes a symbol for whole synechdoche in other words a part of a whole.)lets just say the idea is correct but the phrasement had been a little off.
"Can I have another cup?" When you are asking for more coffee.
"Nice mouth!" When you are retorting the cuss words used in a flame.
A Synecdoche, by contrast, replaces the (here I go again) literal with (basically) either a part of the something, or the whole class to which the something belongs. Vis:
Part put for whole: "His feet are swift to shed blood." More than his feet are at fault for his evil ways; he is.
Whole put for part: "Everyone hates her." In truth, only the speaker and perhaps the speaker's friends, from among the inhabitants of the whole earth, hate her.
Ten-Four. "All hands on deck" is a great Synecdoche! It is a better example to illustrate the figure of speech too, when a part is put for the whole. A part, the crewmen's "hands" are put figuratively to represent the crewmen.
"His feet are swift to shed blood" contains at least one more figure, a type of Metonymy called Metalepsis or Double Metonymy, where "to shed blood" is put for "to kill" or "to murder." Multiple figures make the statement deeper, but too complex when trying to isolate a good example of a single figure.
Bullinger bears looking at on the subject of Synecdoche. His Figures of Speech Used in the Bible identifies 4 types: 1) Synecdoche of the genus, 2) Synecdoche of the species, 3) Synecdoche of the whole, and 4) Synecdoche of the part. user:jstanley01
I'd call the cup question an ellipsis, and the everyone indefinite. lysdexia 00:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another good example is "Lend me your ears" Calling someone to listen. "Give me a hand" also works. A whole person is needed to help, not just a hand.
Baseball bats are made of ash, not hickory. Knife handles are made of hickory.
-- Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that synecdoches should not be listed as a form of metonymy (aka similies are a form of metaphors). They are related but represent two distinct forms of reference rather than one being a superset of the other. yes its true that the synecdoche is a part of a metonymy, yet we could better say that the metonymy has a synechdohe integrated. Wikipedia is not an opinion page, OP. No one cares what you agree with.
So.. the 'doche' part comes from the Greek for "I accept" ... so "okey-dokey" actually means what it means? not just reduplication? or is that just a coinky-dink?
@
Unbh: you wrote none of this is in the lede. All is unsourced
. The lede says "it is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole (pars pro toto), or vice versa (
totum pro parte)."
My edit added a subtitle to reflect this, and some bullets taken directly from our existing article Totum pro parte.
Please can you explain what you are objecting to?
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The rose left between the pages of a book was the one that a man gave to the love of his heart, and she held it there to keep her remembering him, the moment, the vibrant colour of the rose and it's smell, the ringing beat of her heart and the rest she wanted to remember till she dies. Time passing, the rose gets dry, looses her colour and fragrance, but can still bring back much of the memory. When both of them die, descendents may have kept the book with the rose for remembering their ancestors they possibly loved, but it had brought not the same memories back to them as did to original couple, and carried a different meaning for them. They may have written the story as I have done here, and several next generation were introduced to that family traditions and understood it. But if that family lost that tradition (or died out) and enough time passed that language and culture changed enough, when somebody found that story the written word rose might in the extreme have no more meaning, but just the name left.
In 1978 Fairchild Corporation (then it's parent corporation) destroyed corporate archive of Republic Aviation [1], les then a decade after death of the original founder and owner Fairchild died.
References