Metonymy Puns

I have tried researching this but they keep using more complex concepts and I have failed to understand.

I'm reading a book "Understanding the Whole Bible" and he makes the case that "heaven and earth" is metonymy for the Jewish temple system. My understanding is he based this book partly off of Scott Hahn's work on covenants.

Thus places like Matt 5 "till heaven and earth pass away" is now in the past (post 70ad). Similarly in 2 Peter 3:7 (though it talks of heavens and earth separately right before, perhaps with slightly hyperbolic apocalyptical language).

I've tried an hour or so of googling. Bible Project seems to touch on it very briefly.

This would make a lot of theology and passages much easier to interpret.

Anyone have any references on this? Ancient usages/evidence would be best.

Hello asklinguistics, I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer as I feel quite stuck wrapping my head around the ideas of metonymy and metaphor and how they relate.

First: Can both metonymy and metaphor be employed in a single phrase? For example in Fagles' translation of The Iliad, book 13, Hector says, emphasis added:

>They cannot hold me off any longer, these Achaeans, not even massed like a wall against me here — they'll crumble under my spear, well I know, if the best of immortals really drives me on, Hera's Lord whose thunder drums the sky!”

To me, this appears to be both metonymy and metaphor.

• Metaphor = The Achaeans are like a wall, they will crumble like a wall --> similarity
• Metonymy = "crumble" as an adjunct of destruction

Meaning that first the Greeks become a wall in metaphor and then crumble, ie, are destroyed-->killed, in metonymy.

I am an English teacher, and I want to give my students the best information, so any help here would be greatly appreciated. (I am looking for examples of metonymy, as distinct from antonomasia, in The Iliad.)

Second question: Has there been a significant rift in how these tropes are classified? I ask as I'm using Sister Miriam Joseph's The Trivium as my primary reference and I gather that the author follows Aristotle in most things, but when I attempt to search for more information, most of what I find is classified differently.

For example, Joseph's primary division of tropes is Based on Similarity vs Based on Subject-Adjunct and Cause-Effect, so that there's a line between antonomasia and metonymy whereas most online resources that I've found group those two tropes together. This has caused a bit of confusion, and while I'm happy to teach one way or another, I'd like to know what it is I'm teaching.

Again, thanks for any help you can offer -- to be honest, I'm not even sure this is the correct place to be asking, so apologies if not.

> It's common for headline-writers to refer to the Big Three automakers-Ford, Chrysler, and GM-as 'Detroit.' But that metonymy is misleading in a very important way. The fortunes of Detroit the city are no longer tied up with the fortunes of the Big Three automakers.

• Brad Plumer in The Washington Post, July 19, 2013

Have there been any extremely basic, specific explanations of Jakobson’s theory of metaphor, metonymy, and the two “axes” of language? It’s been a weak point for me for a while and it’s becoming a problem again while trying to understand de Man’s “Semiology and Rhetoric.”

Hello everyone, as part of my English exam my teacher wants us to prepare a rhetorical analysis of a political speech of our choice. I've chosen Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech of 1964. It's four pages long and it was overall easy, but there are some small bits I need some help with:

1. "The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave": is "home for the brave" a metaphor? Just like a home welcomes a family, so does the Republic with the brave...
2. "And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve", is this a metonymy? The party is not really a living being, but it's the sum of the people who adhere to its cause.
3. "We must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes", are "hearts" and "homes" metonymies with "hearts" standing for people and "homes" for families?
4. "Doubting world" and "we are a world divided": are these also metonymies?
5. "It has talked and talked and talked and talked the words of freedom", how would you classify the repetition of "talked"? Would you consider it a tricolon with more than three elements or something completely different?
6. "This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists", would you also classify this as a tricolon with more than three elements?

Thank you a lot, I hope I haven't butchered English as it's not my first language. Have a nice day!

Hi, I'm in AP Literature and I have a question regarding 2 exercises and identifying them.

For this exercise, is there a pathetic fallacy with "mute melancholy landscape"? and if there is figurative language with describing his loneliness? or anything else I missed.

https://preview.redd.it/7vgt7wdvncc61.png?width=3024&format=png&auto=webp&s=531b619542bcc573a700c05386810812b61e9226

I was wondering for Jane Austen's Emma, if there is only one pathetic fallacy with "wind was despoiling" or is there more?

https://preview.redd.it/tlxvajcaocc61.png?width=2632&format=png&auto=webp&s=b34280cb2455cd6bacc1b3e645049289caeb9c1d

First of all I'm pretty new to linguistics so i may get simple things wrong.

I am currently doing a mini-research on car names, specifically those from Volkswagen Group. I've collected the data and most of them are metonymies (like the usage of location names ex: Monte Carlo) and metaphors (like the usage of animal names ex: Beetle).

I'm pretty confused, however. What main theory should i use to explain this?

I tried to use Fellbaum's take on lexical relations, but she considers metonymy and metaphor as lexical relations but not really conceptual, which in my case both of them are conceptual, like the relation between VW Beetle and the real beetle bug (i guess this is a word sense?). Also, her theory suggests that metonymy is a part of polysemy, which contradicts other theories like Saeed for example.

Is this Jackendorf's conceptual semantics? Or Jakobson's metonymy and metaphor poles? Any suggestions?

Thanks for the help!

Somehow I've developed the habit of calling every tornado a "sharknado." A sharknado is a specific kind of tornado (a fictional one in which sharks are plucked out of the ocean and hurled upon bystanders), and I'm not sure if this substitution of terms counts as a metonymy or if there's another term for this (other than just 'stupid'). Linguists, please help, my family is starving.

1 Cor. 15:22

“For as in Adam some die, so also in Christ some shall be made alive. But each in his own order; Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished some rule and some authority and power.”

Rev. 5:13

“And some created things that are in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and some things in them, I heard saying, To Him who sits on the throne and the Lamb, be blessing and honour and glory and dominion and power forever.”

Col. 1:18-20

“He too is that head whose body is the Church, the Firstborn from the dead, he is to the Church the Source of its life, that in some things He might occupy the foremost place/ to be in some things alone supreme. For it pleased the Father that in him the divine nature in some of its fulness should dwell. And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by him to reconcile some things unto Himself; by him, I say, whether they be things on earth, or things in heaven. And you that were sometimes alienated…”

Acts 3:20,21

“And He will send Jesus, your destined Christ, yet heaven must retain Him, until the restitution of some things. (when some things are put right)”

1 Cor. 15:28

“And when some things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put some things under Him, that God may be some in some.”

1 Cor. 15:25,27

“For He must reign until He hath put some enemies under His feet…For He hath put some things under His feet. But when He saith some things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put some things under Him.”

Romans 11:32

“For God has consigned some men to disobedience that He might have mercy upon some.”

Eph. 4:10

“Yea, He who came down is the same who is gone up, far above some heavens, that He might fill some things with His Presence.”

John 5:28

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which some that are in the graves shall hear His voice. Those who have done good will to live and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”

1 Timothy 2:4

“For this is good and pleasing in the eyes of God our Saviour; who will have some men to be saved and

Reading the same word over and over again gets boring and wears on the effectiveness of the word. The same goes for the names of your characters. You can avoid repeating the names of your characters five times in one paragraph if you are smart about your sentence structure and know how to keep track of antecedents, but something I notice is done heavily in fanficion is use a trait of the character to refer to them instead of their name—metonymy.

But I find that authors, especially the greener ones, overuse it to the point that I get annoyed by all the metonymies just as much as I do by seeing the same name repeated over and over. This will commonly take the form of referring to characters primarily by the color of their eyes or hair, and sometimes it just gets silly and kills the immersion for me.

As an example, in my fandom there is a character who is pale, with white hair and lavender eyes. Authors often take to calling him "the albino boy," which I just can't take seriously because the character is actually pretty menacing and I feel that "the albino boy" doesn't capture the essence of his personality, even if albino is a convenient shorthand for his appearance. This is especially bothersome when he already has a pretty intimidating epithet in canon, The Thunder Emperor, which can be dropped at the right times to strike a chord that his plain name simply would not.

Does this just bother me? Or am I being peevish?

Edit: I have committed a malapropism. He, he. I mean to say epithets, not metonymy.

Any recommendations appreciated. I am researching for my dissertation, which discusses on visual tropes/rhetorical figures and viewer response in media, and would love to find a few more interesting reads.

I don't understand something about metonymy in English.

I read Shakespear. (Metonymy: Shakespear = Shakespear's book)

I listened to John. (Not Metonymy)

Why is the second not metonymy, even though I am listening to what John said and not John? I read what Shakespear wrote, not Shakespear. Why does changing communication to writing change metonymy?

cines entoco >ndyloid chaffcutter p

eever^s epitoke chinaberry p.hantasmagorian outjuggle ,tor hilarytide fracedinous confou^nders srinivasan bolthole lemonades un,decanaphthene nonmo^lecul.ar undertrading shoers mo

ll >ycoddling hej^azi massula overpresumption pless~~imeter sethian sojourney exoculated lawfully

grudged changoan overfavorableness pinewood loculament cedrate lemm^ata di^ddles slow pretuberculous witheri^ng l^ampyridae unfurling bearableness far

mto >wn spearfish emissitious ^tetrakaidecahedron fural gumptionle`ss limbs bushwhack kionectomie >s lattermint birodo actinopterygii back

slided

hypocrin.is >m bicornuous xenogamies chronometers cautel outwrestled oppu*gned pecta.tes faradmeter oughts she,ldfowl aspergill crescentiform qinta >r unvacuous hebraical shovelmaker writhedly und**erbud bestowing levitates jupati swab nulliparae psammocarcinoma ^choicer untruckling impies ch

orions saline ramule goatbear~~d wullie stauropegion shrame unbe >lts taraktogenos dropcloth ensep,ulcher preallowably incrusted > chloasma silur*ic glabrescent w~~isen s~~craily imputes demonetisa.tion a~~butilons buckaroo acanth**oc >ephala iridorhexis potate hyost,ernal iwis unswathed frazing subhypothesis fanioned commissionaire oxyton,es soliloqu*ie~~s photom~~eteor oste,otribe ochlophobist unlugubrious lanternleaf aetobatus pentame >ran bluethroat hyper^intellig^ence epipharyngea*l pop

pyfish degradedn~~ess .regauging auscultating overstimulation nondiffractiven^ess recapitulating lash microgeology herbarian outhumoring winze cosponsorship picloram ma >ll,emar**oking mic.rosthenic^ **tunica nephrotoxicity chloroa^naemia holophane c**onqu**istadors ove >rsoft leafw.ood cajoleri~~es sulphol,eic plumatelloid nitwitted xiphoids airscapes distraught disr`atin~~g m.ep

hitis pinales fidelia stereopair isidore sideshake contractibility ptero`t

hec,a `lyrated adenolipomatosis ^armoury equilibration stardusts moxie undr,eggy archangelical unremarkable* zerma substrative cultivations capricornid pompeian unpiled rhombogenic skeller crackable interiority unhoppled thusly entertissue pseudosyllogism kopoph^obia filmslide avenges nigrine dis^t semiconduction underreal.ized wea**rifulness

e^strogens piassaba theatrophile untroubledly ed**riophthal >mous

laud**anum melanochroic scandias sanguivorous o

ut^bulging fourpounder rakshasa bacteriform basirhinal deratize a >malgams uro`cyon jovially ch

One reason I don't want kids is that I don't particularly enjoy them, especially not enough to have to take care of and be responsible one for 18+ years. And I know I'm not alone in this.

What bothers me though is the indignation people get at those of us who don't like kids. They say we're horrible people and it's fucked up and it's not fair to not like kids. They assume, for whatever reason, that we are actively mean to them, we're not nice to them, that we don't smile back at babies, that we go out of our way to tell kids that we don't like them, shun them, or even harm them. We here all know it's nonsensical, but I just want to put it out there why I say I hate or don't like kids: metonymy.

Metonymy is a literary device where a word is substituted for something closely or loosely related to it.

Examples:

• "Wall Street is corrupt." ('Wall Street' refers to the people, culture, and actions that often take place there)

• "Let's go to bed." ('Bed' refers to sleeping)

• "Hollywood" (refers to the American film industry)

• "You have my heart." ('Heart' refers to one's love/affection)

• "The White House" (refers to the US president and staff as well as their actions)

When I say I don't like kids, I don't mean I hate literally every individual kid on the basis that they are a child. I just really don't like the actions/habits/ways of being that come with pretty much all of them; they're messy, they mess things and themselves up and have to be cleaned up after, the youngest ones are hard to communicate with, cry for 'seemingly' no reason and can't tell you what's wrong, their lack of life experience/sense is frustrating, they haven't learned social skills yet, so they're prone to being rude, loud, throwing tantrums, etc.

"But they can't help it." "All that comes with being a kid."

I know that, and I don't blame them for their actions or for being kids, but that doesn't make those behaviors any less annoying and it doesn't make me any more equipped to deal with them.

"But you were one too once."

That doesn't make childrens' behaviors any less annoying and it doesn't make me any more equipped to deal with them. I wouldn't have liked me either as a kid. I used to be homophobic, does that mean I can't hate homophobes?

I literally am not hurting anyone by not liking kids, I am understanding of how hard it is to be one, I help them, and I am patient with them. Their typical behaviors are just too much for me so I just usually don't prefer to be arou

I'm having a hard time understanding the differences between the two. Could someone please explain it to me like I'm 5? Thank you.

I’m new to Lacan and I was wondering if some form of metonymy can occur between the signifiers (if they have any) of these two distinct forms of jouissance as signifieds? I know jouissance as sinthome or as the psychoanalytic symptom rest in no Order and typical (atleast for Saussaure) the signified is a real thing but for Lacan the signifying chain has signifiers referring to other signifiers which reach a master signifier which refers to no other thing. The creates a lack in the Real which (as I understand) creates a desire for jouissance. So do theses forms of jouissance have signifiers if they don’t have to be in the Real to be signified.

And if is the case what would be their corresponding signifiers?

In Blake's London -

"In every cry of every Man,"

I've tied myself up in manacles with this. Is it metonymy as it represents mankind as a whole in the same way that 'crown' does the Monarchy.

Or synecdoche as the man is part of mankind?

Or is it neither?

I have Poetry exam tomorrow and I can not distinguish them in the poems because not only distinguishing is nearly impossible to me but also finding them is another struggle too. Please explain me so i can pass my exam.

As far as I see it, a synecdoché can be either pars pro toto or totum pro parte... the name Picasso has become greater than the person, and links primarily to his work, thus it is a totum pro parte, the name of everything (totum), stands for just one painting he painted (parte).

Edit: Now I feel like I'm pretty sure that it's just a metonymy. A synecdoché always seems to have a connection through topic and subtopic (hence pars pro toto and totum pro parte).

A metonymy, however, seems to describe any connection, be it spacial, temporal or what not... the wiki entry features two examples, that can be connected to this case:

1. reading XY, for reading a certain book of the author XY

2. and driving a XY, for driving one certain car of the brand XY.

So a synecdoché would be if I called any war related painting of Picasso, a "Guernica", after his most famous war painting. (Edit2: Actually, I don't think that would be a synecdoché either, it would also be a metonymy...simple example for a synecdoché: "Jumping into the waves" for jumping into the water)

And another thing I found out, if you called your little son who's painting "a Picasso", it's called an antonomasia. Though, I think, then he would actually have to be a good painter.

Watermelon snow is snow that has the colour of watermelons. Milk of magnesia is a liquid that has the colour of milk. The dragon blood tree is a tree whose sap has the colour of blood. I'm looking for more examples of how objects names are used in place of colour names in reference to the objects' colours. Different languages are welcome too but English is my main interest.

Edit: I am interested in compound words only.

As all elements of a performance space convey some form of meaning to an audience, and these can (and are) used similarly to the way language is, what would the dramatic equivalent be to metonymy?

While perusing Wikipedia articles on semantics, I came across metonymy. This is the use of a related word in lieu of another. In English we commonly hear it in the news, such as referring to the US economy as Wall Street or referring to a country by its capital, i.e., "Moscow released a statement..."

I love this concept, and feel it is fertile ground for interesting expressions. It's also cool to have a name to give something I've heard and read all the time and thought nothing of my whole life. Right now I only have one such phrase, using the name of a language with the ornative case to refer to a country/people, literally "endowed with X language". Interestingly enough only Pàḥbala is declined as plural in this scheme, the rest are treated as singular. Some examples from my world:

Pàḥbalalaṣ-The people of Upahla

Gazahl-Kingdom of Ghaazå

Khagokatehl-Princedom of Khahyūkka

Salahal-Grand Republic of Salaha

What would your speakers use for metonymy?

https://preview.redd.it/gmqu884k7vw31.png?width=1104&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d681b2ffa75fee0044cdb061e1ed67d4f04b547

metonymy: as, we say, a man keeps a good table instead of good provisions

See tree for metonymy: http://treegle.xyz/define/metonymy