Isn't
steam a mist, as is fog, and so doesn't boiling water (i.e.
steaming water) evaporate directly into
mist then? If steam is not a type of mist, then what is it?
Which leads to the question of the choice of mists(s) in the plural in the metaphor wm cited. Why a plural? Why not "the mist of coincidence". Is the author implying there are
degrees of coincidince just as ther are degrees of mist (light mist, steam, heavy fog, etc.) You can have an obvious coincidence or a subtle coincidence, and other varieties of coincidence in between, can't you? In fact, a miracle, or synchronicity, would be a heavy coincidence, not very misty at all, and, OTOH, there are miniscule connections you become aware of in some things which might lead you to say 'there might be some coincidence there.'
So
the plurality of mist must be of some consequence in the chosen metaphor here.
And, speaking of the plurality of mist, the expression "
clouded in a sea [of]" is something I've heard frequently over the years in both writing and speech, almost something of an idiom. Once a metaphor takes on its own life as an idiomatic expression (which is like a new word) the linguistic specifics of its original conjuring then take a back shelf to its new semantic life, don't you think? Specifically, I agree it is the same as, say, "drowning in a sky of trouble." But if the meaning is implicit and not obscure then the
language of the metaphor works, does it not?
And, Faldage, just one question: Who's on first?
