ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: metonymy

Grammar Geek — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:57:28 GMT

Oh! He may have indeed.

That makes more sense.

Re: metonymy

Avangi — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:55:22 GMT

Sorry, GG, I thought he meant whaling is an endangered profession/source of meat. That whaling/whale substitution question in the first post went right over my head. - A.

Re: metonymy

Avangi — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:50:17 GMT

You can say that, but again, this is just a statement of fact. It is not a metonym.

As an analogy, do you understand the difference between a simile and a metaphor?

The boxer Muhammad Ali described his boxing style: "float like a butterfly; sting like a bee." This is a simile. There's no substitution.

In a metaphor, there's substitution. "In the second round, the tiger sprang out of his corner and demolished his oponent." You don't say the boxer came out like a tiger; you say he is a tiger. You substitute tiger for boxer.

In a metonym, you substitute something associated with the word it replaces. He gave up the harpoon forever = He gave up whaling forever "Whaling" must not appear in your sentence.

- A.

Re: metonymy

Grammar Geek — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:43:14 GMT

You can't use "whaling" to mean "whales," no.

However, the example above, using "the harpoon" to refer to "whaling" works.

He gave up the bottle = he gave up drinking.

Re: metonymy

wholegrain — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:20:38 GMT

What about "Whaling is a endangered source of meat"? Can we really say that? Can we use metonymy without discrimination, as much as we want?

Re: metonymy

Avangi — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:17:27 GMT

"Whaling is a source of meat" is a simple statement of fact. There's no "figure of speech" involved.

You need to find a way to substitute the "source of meat" expression for the word "whaling," so the word "whaling" does not appear in your sentence.

Someone may have coined the phrase "a metonymy cause-effect substution," but I haven't heard it. I'd think we'd need the adjective, metonymic, if there is such a thing.

Where "whaling" is the cause and "meat" is the effect, you need to replace "whaling" in a sentence with an expression about meat, in such a way that the reader understands that you're talking about whaling. With no substitution, there is no metonomy.

As an aside, according to my understanding of this figure of speech, the substitutions are not limited to cause-effect relations. It could simply be a tool of the trade. "After Jack was injured in a fall from the mast, he gave up the harpoon forever." (That is, he gave up whaling forever.)

- A.

metonymy

wholegrain — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:41:39 GMT

Can we say for instance:

"Whaling is a source of meat" with "whaling" as a metonymy cause-effect substitution of "whale".

And can we even say "a metonymy cause-effect substitution"?