Talk:Synecdoche

Synecdoche vs. metonymy

I need to do some research before I make any changes here, but I believe it is incorrect to say that Synecdoche is a form of Metonymy. Though closely related, I believe they are distinct figures of speech.

A Metonymy replaces the (dare I say) literal with something associated with the literal, vis:(this statement is close yet merly true, a metonymy substitutes a symbol for whole synechdoche in other words a part of a whole.)lets just say the idea is correct but the phrasement had been a little off.

"Can I have another cup?" When you are asking for more coffee.

"Nice mouth!" When you are retorting the cuss words used in a flame.

A Synecdoche, by contrast, replaces the (here I go again) literal with (basically) either a part of the something, or the whole class to which the something belongs. Vis:

Part put for whole: "His feet are swift to shed blood." More than his feet are at fault for his evil ways; he is.

Whole put for part: "Everyone hates her." In truth, only the speaker and perhaps the speaker's friends, from among the inhabitants of the whole earth, hate her.

user:jstanley01

A slightly clearer use of synechdoche is the literal sense: "All hands on deck!", etc. Without needing a lot of interpretation, etc., this makes things a bit easier to follow, I think; good way to extend it deeper, though. user:zarquan42

Ten-Four. "All hands on deck" is a great Synecdoche! It is a better example to illustrate the figure of speech too, when a part is put for the whole. A part, the crewmen's "hands" are put figuratively to represent the crewmen.

"His feet are swift to shed blood" contains at least one more figure, a type of Metonymy called Metalepsis or Double Metonymy, where "to shed blood" is put for "to kill" or "to murder." Multiple figures make the statement deeper, but too complex when trying to isolate a good example of a single figure.

Bullinger bears looking at on the subject of Synecdoche. His Figures of Speech Used in the Bible identifies 4 types: 1) Synecdoche of the genus, 2) Synecdoche of the species, 3) Synecdoche of the whole, and 4) Synecdoche of the part. user:jstanley01

I'd call the cup question an ellipsis, and the everyone indefinite. lysdexia 00:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another good example is "Lend me your ears" Calling someone to listen. "Give me a hand" also works. A whole person is needed to help, not just a hand.

Baseball bats...

Baseball bats are made of ash, not hickory. Knife handles are made of hickory.

--Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not metonymy

I agree that synecdoches should not be listed as a form of metonymy (aka similies are a form of metaphors). They are related but represent two distinct forms of reference rather than one being a superset of the other. yes its true that the synecdoche is a part of a metonymy, yet we could better say that the metonymy has a synechdohe integrated. Wikipedia is not an opinion page, OP. No one cares what you agree with.

Wait a minute.. Etymology..

So.. the 'doche' part comes from the Greek for "I accept" ... so "okey-dokey" actually means what it means? not just reduplication? or is that just a coinky-dink?

Totum pro parte

@Unbh: you wrote none of this is in the lede. All is unsourced. The lede says "it is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole (pars pro toto), or vice versa (totum pro parte)."

My edit added a subtitle to reflect this, and some bullets taken directly from our existing article Totum pro parte.

Please can you explain what you are objecting to?

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

None of it is sourced m saying it's in another article is not sufficient. This article is already full of unsourced examples we don't need more. Unbh (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

===Verifiability is the reason for sourcing===

@Unbh: I always thought the sourcing is needed to make verifiability principle possible, and easy, not just to enforce a policy without understanding why it is needed (and when). You were correct in most of your reply, but please, don't be preferring telling people what not to do, please prefer telling them what to do instead, and how, and why.

Details:

====Definition is sourced in "totum pro parte" article====

I looked into totum pro parte article and found nothing that needed additional referencing for me to accept. The definition in the article is sourced (it might use additional sources to evade depending on single source, but I don't see another source is needed at the moment; might be useful for the future - see below).

====Examples are not sourced====

The rest of examples listed there are common knowledge now, and as such it looks like currently not being seen to be notable (literally: not worth mentioning, discussing, researching, funding the research...) for peer reviewed publishing, so sources that shall be WP reliable to next generations too (peer reviewed...) sometimes seem to be a bit hard to find.

Also what is now common sense and knowledge may become obscure after our generation dies out (or even before, like for current kids divided Germany is no more common knowledge), but history that might be taught as uninteresting (or even hated) subject by a bad teacher.

====When examples seem not needing sourcing====

An example of what might elucidate (throw light on, make clear and understandable), why sourcing any of those examples might not be needed now, would be the examples of (currently) well known mathematical operations of addition and multiplication. When you define well one of these two (and source them by current WP policy), you can give the examples without sourcing each particular example to a peer reviewed source. E.g.

• 1+1=2
• 1*2=2

when that is true (depends on context). The same might also be correctly written as 1+1=10 and 1*10=10 where notation were binary.

The definition - and the context (conditions when the definition is valid) - should be made clear and complete, and sourced if at all possible, but I think we can agree each example listed (as in this case) does not necessarily be sourced so.

But when current generations die out, and if culture of being able to do calculations (and the rest of the math) in one's head becomes obsolete and next generations get completely dependent on external (digital or newer) support, context - and sources for it - would be necessary - vital - to get provided to articles as proposed in this example. Without reliable sources such generations could possibly even deny that it was possible their (more primitive) ancestors could do such things without artificial support when they can't.

====Terms and their meanings are evolving====

@Onceinawhile: In the Name of the rose Umberto Echo nicely introduces the idea of semiotics - the idea that meanings of symbols (being heard, seen, touched - sensed in any way possible - written and spoken words are just a subset) is not static, but inherently changing. Paraphrasing from the book (from memory...)

The rose left between the pages of a book was the one that a man gave to the love of his heart, and she held it there to keep her remembering him, the moment, the vibrant colour of the rose and it's smell, the ringing beat of her heart and the rest she wanted to remember till she dies. Time passing, the rose gets dry, looses her colour and fragrance, but can still bring back much of the memory. When both of them die, descendents may have kept the book with the rose for remembering their ancestors they possibly loved, but it had brought not the same memories back to them as did to original couple, and carried a different meaning for them. They may have written the story as I have done here, and several next generation were introduced to that family traditions and understood it. But if that family lost that tradition (or died out) and enough time passed that language and culture changed enough, when somebody found that story the written word rose might in the extreme have no more meaning, but just the name left.

From both my direct experience and studies I know (and give examples) I can agree with Echo that meaning of symbols (in vastly different contexts) are (almost?) all changing.

====Changes of meanings shall need context====

Because also meaning of spoken and written language symbols (from words and their families and structures, through idioms and statements on) shall (almost?) surely change, we'll need context also for the contents of Wikipedia. It's impossible (IMO - I heard/read mathematicians succeeded to prove mathematically that for chaotic processes but I didn't go through it and even can't recall the source) to predict, how language and context can change, so we can neither prevent, nor even reliably predict, the loss of meaning. But that context that can be passed would be valued, and could be significantly enhanced by sources cited. That is why sourcing may be welcome also in places where it is not currently necessary.

Finding WP reliably sources for a subject may even currently be not possible, because a subject set, e.g. a particular (whole or a piece of the) Universe of discourse (UD) is not seen as notable (in the literal way I mentioned above), and is not discussed and published in an accepted public reviewed way now.

====Whenever we can, we should cite the sources=====

We should cite the sources, because they shall most probably needed, not just because it is the WP policy and the contents without could (and often should) be removed from WP.

In the case of totum pro parte examples are mostly common knowledge now, but authors would be well advised of possible change in that, and keep that in mind.

There are also things (whole articles, or just data that would be welcome/needed) that are missing in WP, but which I can't WP-legally enter, because there I can't find no WP reliable sources available (don't exist, not published, not digitized... or even intentionally destroyed). An example (paraphrased):

In 1978 Fairchild Corporation (then it's parent corporation) destroyed corporate archive of Republic Aviation, les then a decade after death of the original founder and owner Fairchild died.

More, facts that were common knowledge and common sense, and so seeming not notable (se at the top), shall be forgotten when/if the generation(s) for which they were common knowledge die out. I can - and intend to - write at least part of what I am aware of in such a way, that can be accessible to next generation(s) to discuss and publish in a peer reviewed way (which shall be then available as WP reliable source).

Seeing how often people - already - discussing such things lack context to understand background of their current universe of discourse, sadly seems far from a fool-proof procedure. And I still prefer doing things to just writing about them, so I'd probably die far before much of that gets written.

Anyway, IMO it should be mandatory to encourage people to look for, and cite sources, and explain why, not just grumbly (or laconically, or even sardonically if it happens) criticise an article is bad (even if it is). If somebody encountered such bad articles zillion times grouchy feelings are understandable, but are a mark (symptom) of getting old (in mind even when not in body), so one shouldn't go infect younger people with that pathogen unnecessarily, and to early, if one can prevent it. If at all possible, I would much prefer getting infected by enthusiasm of young instead. Of course, that is OT (original thinking) and has no place in the articles, but I think shall be permitted on talk page. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References