Richard Polhill wrote:
> 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..."
Yes, but I wasn't the one who suggested that 'metonymy' was the word he
meant :-)
--
John Briggs
|
