Talk:Metaphor

A Question

In John Crowe Ransom's "Bells for John Whiteside's Daughter," is the phrase "her wars" considered a metaphor? if so what type? it seems border line to me.

---

..."Her wars were bruited in our high window. We looked among orchard trees and beyond Where she took arms against her shadow, Or harried unto the pond..."

--My opinion-- A short answer would be that "war" is a living metaphor, ensured life by the later reference to "arms", which are parts of a greater metaphor system. In her imagination, her stick is a sword, no matter how dull, flaccid or ineffective. She can advance or retreat, disarm or call a truce. It is this extendability of the figurative meaning that is the hallmark of metaphors.

--My opinion--

Falderal

Current comments

Following Bill Thayer's last edit to the article (20:35, 11 July 2005 Bill Thayer m (outright link spam this time....)), I've looked through the remaining "External links" and removed them all. It's not the purpose of of Wikipedia to link to the rest of the web. External links should be used for authoritative sources or sources from which significant content was taken. Wikipedia does not exist to increase other pages' click count. Mattisgoo 10:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-added area for external links. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not; "Wikipedia is not a repository of links, images or media files". It reads:

  Wikipedia articles are not:

1) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. [My bold]

Provided that the link is direct, relevant and its content not redundant, the link is in keeping with policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims at being concise, thus cannot offer material written for all levels or styles of learning, nor supply endless examples of every kind. This is precisely what external links can and should address.

Where a link is purely self-promotional, or secretes its information behind pop-ups, registrations or other invasive tactics, it is not offering the material in a direct and accessible fashion in keeping with the spirit of Open Source material, and is therefore clearly unsuited.

Falderal 01:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Old comments

The remaining comments predate a major revision to the article and are no longer relevant.

---

Can I add an funky comment at the end to the effect that today in Greece, the large lorries with "Metafora" written on the side belong to moving companies? i love wikipedia...its hot

csg

---

Neither Stevie Wonder nor Elton John coined the phrases with which they were credited. I also tried to standardize the examples in the form of "figure given" = "thing meant." Rewrote "ship of state" example. Jstanley01

---

The expression "(something) is like pulling hen's teeth" is factually incorrect. The correct expression was coined during the days when people lived on farms and were more familiar with hens that were still alive and wearing feathers. The correct expression is that "(something) is as rare as hens' teeth." The force of this quaint simile derives from the fact that hens have no teeth. Jstanley01

---

The first sentence read:

"Broadly speaking, all figurative language can be called metaphorical"

Certainly, all figurative language "can be called metaphorical." The question is, should all of it be called metaphorical. In point of fact, this statement is not true, and here is an example for you, alliteration is no figure new, but calling it "metaphorical" will not do (Hey, don't I know it! I ain't no gosh darn poet! ô¿ô)

Other not-at-all-metaphorical figures include Polyptoton, Asyndeton, Antanaclasis, Pleonasm, Hyperbole, Parembole, and perhaps even Heterosis, Antimereia, Antiptosis, Hypallage, and Hediadys. And how "metaphorical" figures such as Synecdoche and Metonymy may be is debatable.

I've rearranged things a bit, and replaced this sentence with:

"There are broad categories of figurative language which are classified as metaphorical"

Jstanley01

---

From the article:

Those interested in further exploration might consider Julian Jaynes, "The Origins of Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind."

Oh no, they shouldn't.

---

The line about metaphor being "dangerous to understanding" seems a bit off to me -- at least not NPOV. Metaphor is at the root (both etymologically and literally) of understanding, IMHO. What do other people think? I didn't want to remove something without any concensus or discussion -- perhaps we could rephrase?

Well, there are some people who think we should never use the word is because it implies that one thing can be identical to another.

That said, the point here seems to have been carefully made. All figures of speech are falsifications at some level and the questioned sentence underlines that. If I say that the universe is a balloon being constantly inflated, that all the points on it keep their relative positions while the whole is being vastly expanded, how can I stop someone from thinking that the universe might pop someday? Ortolan88

Well, it might pop... ;-) I'm with User:Thomas Mills Hinkle on this one: metaphors are a very important part of language. (BTW, you can sign your name on these pages with a sequence of 3 "~" characters). Whether the mistake of taking a metaphor literally is the fault of the listener or the speaker would be an interesting debate. Other European languages tend to use metaphor much more in everyday speech -- I've often noticed that speakers of French and Italian use more metaphorical expressions even when speaking in English. -- Tarquin

Yes, metaphors are basic to much understanding, but most basic to all understanding via language is the much-maligned concept of literality. When I point at something and tell a two-year-old "that is a car," I don't mean that the word "car" is identical with what I am pointing at. Rather, I am educating the two-year-old about the word the English language uses to symbolize the thing I am pointing at. Mark my words, developmental psychology, one of these days, is going to kick revisionist linguistics right in its arse. Jstanley01

---

For now, I've removed this from the article:

Metaphor literally means to bring across, to transfer attributes of one thing to another.

As a claim about "literal meaning" (a very debatable notion, which should probably be avoided in the first paragraph), I think this is complete hogwash. It may be plausible as a claim about the word's etymology, but, if so, it must be stated as such, ideally indicating the languages from which it is derived. I'm not sure this makes for an accurate etymological claim either, however; I just checked the OED, and though does list "to transfer" as the meaning of one of the Greek verbs that "metaphor" originated from, it does not mention transferring "across", nor does it specify that "attributes" are what are to be transfered. If anyone is comfortable with etymological issues, I'd love to get something like this put back into the article. --Ryguasu 07:16 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Well, the OED and Webster's Third simply say that metaphor is from a Greek word meaning "transfer". Origins by Eric Partridge says the two components mean "carry beyond" and Skeat's Dictionary of English Etymology says the two components mean "change" and "bear". Fowler's Concise Oxford Dictionary says meta means "with, after, with implication of 'change'". I would write something like this:

Originally, metaphor was a Greek word meaning "transfer". The Greek etymology is from meta, implying "a change" and pherein meaning "to bear, or carry". Thus, the word metaphor itself has a metaphorical meaning in English, "a transfer of meaning from one thing to another".

BTW, I think it was likely I who originally wrote metaphor was to "bring across." I'm guessing this came from the "transfer" meaning -- transfer coming from bringing (fer) across (trans). Tom

Hearing no objection, I will put this in the article.

The whole bit about metaphors being false, etc., while perhaps philosophically true, is linguistically meaningless, as many, many etymologies reveal that common words are indeed figures of speech in their origin, as with metaphor itself. For the consideration of the rabble, the word consideration comes from words meaning "with the stars", and rabble means "to make a noise". Ortolan88

Just because the meanings of words evolve does not erase the difference between the literal and the figurative in the way human beings use language. An original metaphor makes an unexpected and fresh connection, perhaps a connection never seen before, by playing the literal understanding of something off against something else that must be understood, not literally, but figuratively, thereby giving new insight into the literal.

If the once-original metaphor then becomes so ubiquitous that, by common usage, it becomes a word in its own right, with the formerly-figurative meaning now being attributed as literal -- well, that's one of the ways languages develop. It happens a lot. That's why "many, many etymologies reveal that common words are indeed figures of speech in their origin." Usages change. Languages evolve. Fresh insights become so appropos in so many ways, that they come to be thought of as literal. The example in the article of the word "understanding" is a case in point. I doubt, however, that "sunshine" will ever be redefined as "girlfriend." Jstanley01

I'm not so sure. The word "honey" now means girl/boyfriend. "Ever" is quite a long time, if you use it literally...four, five hundred years from now, a kid might say "she's my sunshine" and not realize where the word comes from. It might take some cross-polination from old-time music into hip-hop for that to happen, though.--Joel 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm removing the following, rather empty editorial remark:

As a subject, metaphor is as complex and deep as one likes.

Also, I've rephrased this passage

In metaphor, one thing is treated as if it were another, "Life is but a dream". By contrast, a simile compares one thing to another, "Getting money from him is like pulling hen's teeth".

I think the implication that metaphors are never "comparisons" is faulty. I don't know if the opposite claim that metaphors are always comparisons is perfect either, though.

--Ryguasu 07:52 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

A metaphor is an assertion of similarity predicated on difference, as such I would say it is always a comparison. If one this is (mis)taken for another then that is not a metaphor. Hyacinth 01:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"A metaphor is an assertion of similarity predicated on difference..." INTERESTING!

Metaphors definitely make comparisons. Remember, metaphor is a figure of speech. Hence, by definition, no metaphor is meant to be taken literally. Metaphor is a rhetorical device which is purposefully counter-to-fact in order to draw a comparison between disparate things in the reader or listener's mind.

Similes and metaphors both make such comparisons, but a metaphor's comparison is the stronger of the two. A third, rarely recognized figure of speech, hypocatastasis, is stronger yet. (See EW Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible.)

SIMILE: "He eats like a dog."

METAPHOR: "He is a dog, the way he eats."

HYPOCATASTASIS: "Look at the dog eat."

Technically speaking, simile makes a comparison by resemblance, metaphor makes a comparison by (counter-to-fact) representation, and hypocatastasis makes a comparison by (counter-to-fact) identification. Jstanley01 02:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the tips (and changes) on style. RKeller

---

It has been mentioned that the word "literally" is now widely used to mean "metaphorically", which is the exact opposite of its real meaning. For example, someone might say "I literally died when I saw him." Well, if they literally died, how come they're still around to say that? Am I the only one annoyed by this decline of language? 193.167.132.66 13:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not decline of language (a mythical concept if ever there was one). It is simply an example of hyperbole or irony. If literally everyone literally spoke literally, then the world would literally be a dull place. macgruder

For what it's worth, "literal" is itself a sort of metaphor -- "literal" literally means "to the letter" (from litera). We have the metaphor translated directly in English as well in the phrase "the letter of the law." Of course, if you were to actually read "to the letter", language would quickly become nonsensical (try reading this sentence one letter at a time!). Tom

Another Question

In Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" is "his (the generals) smile showed red lips and pointed teeth." a metaphor. My teacher says it is. I don't see how. There is no comparison. What is being descibed and what is it being comapared to.

Well, it is figurative speech on many levels. For his smile to show something, for instance, is personification. Also, it's hyperbole, because his lips were probably visible even before he smiled. But I believe that the character's teeth are not literally pointed. Putting that aside, I think that the metaphor your teacher refers to is not in the language itself, but in the images it evokes. What do you think of when you imagine pointed teeth?--Joel 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Extra info

I've added the two paragraphs, one is a general definition of metaphor, the other identifies two people strongly associated with metaphor. There's at present no section suitable for this information, nor is it really adequate to delete on the basis its mentioned in the therapeutic metaphor article; its general to all metaphor rather than one specialist type.

I've reinserted this info in the introduction; if anyone can create a suitable section for definitions and developers (as opposed to "types of metaphor") it would be good. But it definitely belongs in this article too.

FT2 10:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My arguments for removing these were: they are not really "above the line" material; not fitting-in elsewhere is a poor reason to put information at the top of the article. Secondly, (with the exception of Lakoff) they are related to therapeutic metaphor, which is not really the same thing as linguistic metaphor. Specifically, I think that the quote from Kopp is insuccinct and a very poor description of literary metaphor.

Also, in terms of style, what is above the line should reflect a summary of subject and the article. These paragraphs are better described as comment which just didn't fit within the structure of the article.

To respect your wishes, I'll leave it in for now, but I'm going to quietly think about a better way of making appropriate sections for discussing literary versus non-literary metaphor, as well as a section for analysis and development.

I'm not trying to be rude or personal about this but I am strongly interested in protecting a sense of structure and style within the article and resisting it becoming a set of quotes and factoids.

Mattisgoo 00:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It wasn;t a revert to force a viewpoint, more simply (as stated) a sense that you are right about one of the 3 being best left under "therapeutic metaphor" and not knowing quite what to do with the other 2 which seemed general and important. I think you're on the right track, and will watch how it goes, when you think you have a better way to handle those 2, go ahead and try it. FT2 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the restructure. There are now three main categories: Analysis, Literary, Cognitive. This should allow for for further inclusion of material in logical places. I am happy now that the form should allow more to be squeezed into sensible places. Bits which I haven't yet done well: the introduction under Analysis and Classification (should be a better, plain language explanation of metaphors -- actually, I'm not super-happy with the title of this section) and the section on Metaphors in literature and language (this section is disconnected and rubbish but it should show history, and creative and informative uses of metaphor). If no one fixes it before me, I'll fix these sections eventually. In terms of style, I'm worried that the article introduction doesn't flow into the section on Metaphor and Simile well. This is why I want the Analysis introduction to be better written but I'm going to leave it for now since I need to come back and try reading it when fresh. Mattisgoo 08:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! No complaints, in principle its cleaner than it was before. I've had a go at two edits your work suggested 1/ how metaphor is exploited in literature (to match how it's exploited in therapy) in the intro, and 2/ the 1st section which you felt didnt flow well yet. FT2 21:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I like, especially the new section names Aspects of Metaphor and Scope and Definition. I know these don't represent any main text change but I think they really help the "reader orientation at a glance" of the article. Now I just need to fix the "Metaphors in literature and language" section. It deserves some proper research and some fully developed writing rather than the collection of disconnected trivia that is it's current state. May take a week or so to get to this, but I'll do it :-) Mattisgoo 09:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see a collaborative quality article forming. The other article Im working on is being hit by a team of heavy duty POV suppressors. I'm documenting the issues, then it's going to arbcom most likely unless they finally listen to the mediator.... sad eh?

By the way, "Aspects of" and "Overview" are VERY useful sections, I use them a lot... FT2 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Infer v. Imply

"Through this description it is inferred that the first object has some of the qualities of the second." Should it not rather be "Through this description one may infer that the first object has some of the qualities of the second." ?

a metaphor in and of itself implies that the first object has qualities of the second; the person reading/listening to the metaphor infers that implication. the latter rewording makes that perhaps a bit more explicit. i bring this up simply because the current sentence is ambiguous, in that you could substitute 'implied' in it just as easily. Anastrophe 00:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. I have substituted "implied" for "inferred" as suggested. Thanks. Mattisgoo 23:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Slightly aggressive revert

Over the course of a few edits between my last revert on 1 Dec and end of 2 Dec, the opening paragraph was made quite hideous. I have reverted the whole lot.

Some of this was the fault of a vandal who inserted some rubbish in the opening paragraph, possibly to distract from the insertion of his male member lower down. Another unregistered user made some edits related to therapeutic metaphor that I've also chosen to remove.

I know this is a rude thing to do, so I'll try to explain as this:

• trust in unregistered users is typically low
• the additional material made the opening paragraphs very hard to read
• discussion of therapeutic metaphor that does not appear on the page therapeutic metaphor does not belong in the introductory section on metaphor
• the discussion of process metaphor was confusing and supported with neither further explanation or examples

Please read and remember these comments before re-adding any of this content. Mattisgoo 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Is "strike while the iron ... " a mixed metaphor?

AFAIK, "Strike while the iron is in the fire" refers to the ironsmiths practice of shaping iron that has been softened by heating on fire (or that is still in the close proximity or inside fire). There is thus no other metaphore or "vehicle" involved other than that of the ironsmith striking iron softened by fire. This should be not called a mixed metaphor. I have tried to express this in my edit of the main text in a way that allows for further comment or thought by the reader. Iani 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited the section. The goal of the examples is to be clear, so anything potentially confusing should simply be removed, unless it provides some particular illumination. The example was a bit of a strange one -- there are two idioms -- "strike while the iron is hot" and "having an iron in the fire" (or, more normally, having "too many irons in the fire"). The example was an example of mixing up a couple of common idioms, but it was just weird -- not really a mixed metaphor.

i love metaphors!