Wordsmith Talk |
About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | |||
Register Log In Wordsmith Talk Forums General Topics Q&A about words Synecdoche or metonymy?
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Talk about la même chose!
The Oxford Dictionary of English tells me that 'synechoche' is 'a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or visa vera; while 'metonymy' is the subtitution of the name of an adjunct for that of the thing meant.
Well, does this simply mean that 'metonymy' is a certain kind of 'synechoche' -- the part for the whole?
Surely these are murky waters?
The most important thing in any discussion like this is the fact that most rhetorical terms aren't defined quite as precisely as one would want or expect. I've always been interested by them, and I remember in college going to a professor of mine, the chairman of the classics department, to ask about some subtle distinction between two terms, and he basically laughed and said that it was completely irrelevant. - Jesse Sheidlower, North American Editor, Oxford English Dictionary
The difference is subtle.
Synecdoche:
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/S/synecdoche.htm
A part for the whole: a head is part of a beef, wheels are part of a car.
Metonymy:
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/M/metonymy.htm
A pen is something used in writing down thoughts, but is not a part of thought. A crown is something worn by a ruler, but is not a part of a ruler.
we all know of anastrophe; but what about hyperbaton?
(not to be confused with hysteron proteron (hysterologia) or parenthesis)
Moderated by Jackie
Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Rules · Mark All Read Contact Us · Forum Help · Wordsmith Talk