0
Wholegrain Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Is this really a metonymy?
"It depends on a risk of being mislead into error."
instead of
"It depends on physical observation."
"a risk of being mislead into error" being a metonymic substitution for "physical observation".
instead of
"It depends on physical observation."
"a risk of being mislead into error" being a metonymic substitution for "physical observation".
Top answer
No. It has nothing to do with metonymy. CJ
- No.
- It has nothing to do with metonymy.
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
12 Answers
0
0
I still don't understand why.
Because a metonymy is by definition the substitution of something to something contiguous to it, that is proximal in time or space. Isn't there a cause/effect relationship between the two?
Because a metonymy is by definition the substitution of something to something contiguous to it, that is proximal in time or space. Isn't there a cause/effect relationship between the two?
00
Hi,
( In the phrase 'mislead into error', is it really necessary to say 'into error'? )
Clive
( In the phrase 'mislead into error', is it really necessary to say 'into error'? )
Clive
00
I know it is redundant, but I thought that it was a lot clearer this way.
00
I don't see any connection between "physical observation" and "risk of error".
To me metonymy is when the waitress says, "The ham sandwich was a stingy tipper", where "the ham sandwich" means the person who ordered the ham sandwich.
To me metonymy is when the waitress says, "The ham sandwich was a stingy tipper", where "the ham sandwich" means the person who ordered the ham sandwich.
00
Well, in my school book, I remember it said that we can substitute a cause for effect in a metonymy. Therefore, I concluded that any cause could indiscriminately be substituted to an effect and vice versa. Although, the french language may be different in that respect.
00
Hi,
I know it is redundant, but I thought that it was a lot clearer this way.
No, it just sounds odd.
Clive
I know it is redundant, but I thought that it was a lot clearer this way.
No, it just sounds odd.
Clive
00
I reworded my sentence though.
Anyhow, I still don't understand how to distinguish a metonymy from what is not.
Anyhow, I still don't understand how to distinguish a metonymy from what is not.
00
Hi,
As CJ already noted, 'being mislead' does not seem to have any special relationship with 'physical observation'. I thnk you need to try to think of simpler, more concrete examples.
eg They rebelled against the Crown.
eg The important business decisions are always made by the suits on the top floor.
Best wishes, Clive
As CJ already noted, 'being mislead' does not seem to have any special relationship with 'physical observation'. I thnk you need to try to think of simpler, more concrete examples.
eg They rebelled against the Crown.
eg The important business decisions are always made by the suits on the top floor.
Best wishes, Clive
00
wholegrainTherefore, I concluded that any cause could indiscriminately be substituted to an effect and vice versa.
That's a huge generalization. He drove very quickly to get here. As a result of his high rate of speed he received a speeding ticket. Would you say, making an indiscriminate substituate that he got here sooner than usual because he got
0
Related Questions