John Briggs wrote:
> 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...
Which is what I meant by "Just can't see how it applies..."
|
