Richard Polhill wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 4:30 pm, Blue Sow <janet.r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> FCS wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Which part did you feel was 'metonymous'?
>>> Perceptions of "public trans****t" as a genre.
>>
>> As the word "metonymous" probably doesn't exist, I suppose that's as
>> good an answer as any. But what word did you really mean?
>
> metonymy (n)
>
> Brit. /m{shtibar}{sm}t{rfa}n{schwa}mi/, U.S.
> /m{schwa}{sm}t{fata}n{schwa}mi/
> a. Rhetoric. (A figure of speech characterized by) the action of
> substituting for a word or phrase denoting an object, action,
> institution, etc., a word or phrase denoting a property or something
> associated with it; an instance of this. b. In extended use: a
> thing used or regarded as a substitute for or symbol of something
> else. Also (esp. in Linguistics and Literary Theory): the process of
> semantic association involved in producing and understanding a
> metonymy. Because the association involved in metonymy is typically
> by contiguity rather than similarity, metonymy is often contrasted
> with metaphor.
> OED, DRAFT REVISION Dec. 2001
>
> Just can't see how it applies...
In which case, you haven't answered my question :-) He didn't mean
metonymy
either...
--
John Briggs
--
John Briggs
|
