0
Wholegrain Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
metonymy
Can we say for instance:
"Whaling is a source of meat" with "whaling" as a metonymy cause-effect substitution of "whale".
And can we even say "a metonymy cause-effect substitution"?
"Whaling is a source of meat" with "whaling" as a metonymy cause-effect substitution of "whale".
And can we even say "a metonymy cause-effect substitution"?
Top answer
"Whaling is a source of meat" is a simple statement of fact. There's no "figure of speech" involved. You need to find a way to substitute the "source of meat" expression for the word "whaling," so the word "whaling" does not appear in your sentence.
- "Whaling is a source of meat" is a simple statement of fact.
- There's no "figure of speech" involved.
- You need to find a way to substitute the "source of meat" expression for the word "whaling," so the word "whaling" does not appear in your sentence.
- Someone may have coined the phrase "a metonymy cause-effect substution," but I haven't heard it.
- I'd think we'd need the adjective, metonymic , if there is such a thing.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
"Whaling is a source of meat" is a simple statement of fact. There's no "figure of speech" involved.
You need to find a way to substitute the "source of meat" expression for the word "whaling," so the word "whaling" does not appear in your sentence.
Someone may have coined the phrase "a metonymy cause-effect substution," but I haven't heard it. I'd think we'd need the adjectiv
You need to find a way to substitute the "source of meat" expression for the word "whaling," so the word "whaling" does not appear in your sentence.
Someone may have coined the phrase "a metonymy cause-effect substution," but I haven't heard it. I'd think we'd need the adjectiv
00
What about "Whaling is a endangered source of meat"? Can we really say that? Can we use metonymy without discrimination, as much as we want?
00
You can't use "whaling" to mean "whales," no.
However, the example above, using "the harpoon" to refer to "whaling" works.
He gave up the bottle = he gave up drinking.
However, the example above, using "the harpoon" to refer to "whaling" works.
He gave up the bottle = he gave up drinking.
00
You can say that, but again, this is just a statement of fact. It is not a metonym.
As an analogy, do you understand the difference between a simile and a metaphor?
The boxer Muhammad Ali described his boxing style: "float like a butterfly; sting like a bee." This is a simile. There's no substitution.
In a metaphor, there's substitution. "In the second round, the ti
As an analogy, do you understand the difference between a simile and a metaphor?
The boxer Muhammad Ali described his boxing style: "float like a butterfly; sting like a bee." This is a simile. There's no substitution.
In a metaphor, there's substitution. "In the second round, the ti
00
Sorry, GG, I thought he meant whaling is an endangered profession/source of meat. That whaling/whale substitution question in the first post went right over my head. - A.
00
Related Questions