Talk:Figure of speech

Figurative Language

Can anyone think of a principled way to distinguish between "figure of speech" and "figurative language"? The former seems to be a subclass of the latter, but beyond that, I'm not currently sure. --Ryguasu 07:55 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC) Not sure when this became a table, but my inkling is to de-table-ify it, as really what this "table" represents is a list in three columns. Is there a wikipedia policy on the use of tables? It seems to me we don't want to transfer the lousy HTML practice of using tables for format into wikipedia markup.

(now if we were to separate out our list of figures into categories -- then perhaps we could make a table...).

I think maybe it is important to distinguish the differences between what "figure" means in "figure of speech" and "figurative language." In the first sense, the word refers to the style in which a given person speaks. In the latter, the word figurative refers to illustrative language. A person can have a figure of speech using a language that is not figurative. Yoda, in Star Wars for instance, has a figure of speech defined by a OSV grammar and does not necessarily use a figurative language. Figure of speech is personal mannerism that pertains to conversations and styles of speakers. Figurative language is the use of linguistic constructs like similes and metaphors. The two of them, in my opinion, do not encompass each other, though they might share certain components of a language. Tofoo (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Votes for deletion

I am adding most of the articles linked from this article to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, as they are almost entirely definitions. Here are the words I am voting for deletion: Litotes, Accumulatio, Aposiopesis, Meiosis (figure of speech), Anastrophe, Anthimeria, Catachresis, Chiasmus, Periphrasis, Enallage, Hyperbaton, Metalepsis, Paralipsis, Proslepsis, Syllepsis, Synecdoche, Tmesis, Dystmesis, Zeugma. Please bring up any discussion points you have on the Votes for Deletion page. Right now, I think these should be moved to the wiktionary. - DropDeadGorgias 21:20, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Litotes. On a somewhat related note, does anyone have information on the origin of the word Dystmesis? It's not in dictionary.com, nor is in google's define function. Is it a formally accepted word, or is it just an informal derivation of Tmesis? When I search on google, I only get two pages of results, most of which are wikipedia entries or other encyclopedias that source wikipedia. - DropDeadGorgias 15:56, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have recently been going through these entries and expanding them with more text and examples. As a result, I have removed most of the requests to remove or move to Wiktionary. Dpaking 20 February 2005

I don't think you should delete them, they seem pretty important.Asdfjkl1235 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Very Important

This section does not belong in the article. ghansel 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Although this page is a very good page for reference, perhaps it should only be composed of words which are useful, in terms of being easy to spot in talks or literature. Furthermore, when I went on the link to silvae rhetoricae I came across the words homoeoprophon meaning an overuse of alliteration throughout a sentence, and paromoiosis which requires an isocolon (which concerns regular length between different juxtaposed clauses, sentences, lines...) and assonance (repetition of the same vowel sounds within this), creating a form of internal rhyme and sometimes rhythm. I was wondering if in fact these were rhetoric words can be used in the English language, because when searching on the internet for them, I came up with extremely few references to them, or if they are only applicable in the American language; for instance, neither word is in the English Chamber Dictionary. If anyone knows the answer to this I would be very greatfull, after all, these are examples of extremely useful words. Answer at bottom of the discussion section of this wikipedia article. Once someone has provided an answer to this question, could they please delete this caption the article section of this wikipedia page.

Why "axiom"?

Why is "axiom" listed here? Traditionally "axiom" means a self-evident proposition upon which knowledge is built up (and "self-evident" does not mean "obvious" or the like; it has a technical meaning in epistemology), or a proposition in effect treated as if it were self-evident in a particular context. But what does it mean as a rhetorical term or a figure of speech? Michael Hardy 21:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Axiom does not appear to be an example of a figure of speech, the way alliteration or metaphors is. Tofoo (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Th term needs to be sorted out

The term "Figure of speech" is a muddled category because "speech" it refers to talking, language, and words, to the exclusion of other forms of "speaking" (for example, music and visual images.) Tropic thinking ("figures of thought") cut across lingual rhetoric (literature, journalism, oratory, linguistics, etc.), auditory rhetoric (music, radio, etc.), visual rhetoric (visual culture, paintings, sculpture, graphics, design, etc.), and audio-visual rhetoric (film, television, advertising, videos, DVDs, internet, etc.). Much that is considered "figure of speech" can no longer be cosidered in the traditional sense of lingual "speech", and those figures which are not lingual based (i.e., relating to verbal language, grammar, linguistics, etc.) should be clearly separated from the category of "figures of speech" in order to accomodate the expanding role of rhetorical studies.

The term was coined in 1751. It's entirely idiomatic and doesn't translate well into other languages on a verbatim basis. Commentators seem happy to throw poetic devices like alliteration into the figure of speech kettle, which doesn't make good sense to me. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Schemes and tropes

I do agree that these terms need to be moved to Wiktionary. I would like to, however, give a suggestion of how to divide the different figures of speech into their respective places. The way I understand figures of speech is that they fall into two categories: schemes and tropes. A scheme, from the Greek word schema (form, shape), involves a deviation from the ordinary pattern or arrangement of words. A trope, from the Greek word tropein (to turn), involves a deviation from the ordinary and principle signification of a word.

SCHEMES Parallelism, isocolon, antithesis, anastrophe, parenthesis, apposition, ellipsis, asyndeton, polysyndeton, alliteration, assonance, anaphora, epistrophe, epanalepsis, anadiplosis, climax, antimetabole, chiasmus

TROPES Metaphor, simile, synecdoche, metonymy, antanaclasis, paronomasis, syllepsis, anthimeria, periphrasis, personification, hyperbole, litotes, rhetorical question, irony, onomatapoeia, oxymoron, paradox

Note: Renaissance scholars such as Henry Peacham in his piece The Garden of Eloquence identified up to 184 different figures of speech. Therefore, do not be surprised by a large compiling of terms. --Philologus8 22:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While putting the terms into a wiktionary is a good idea, a much better idea is to supply this list with brief explanations right here, for ease of use. Example: Today my senile brains forgot the word oxymoron. I know what I want, but cannot catch the word in the memory. (By the way what is the name of this brain disease?) I had to click, like, 15 links in the list until I got what I wanted. (Now I guess I will go and click several dozen links in psychiatry, to find out what my problem is :-) Mikkalai 00:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the suggestion, as the current organization between "Latin" and "Greek" does not follow the classical organization of rhetorical devices into categories of schemes and tropes. I'd be willing to take a stab at this. I would also suggest that a wider reorganization occur, in which the list of Rhetoric Remedies in the Rhetoric entry be eliminated, and that the list of rhetorical devices and figures of speech be maintained on Figure of Speech. It could be done the other way, but Rhetoric is already long, and a more structured organization of the devices would make it even more so. Dpaking 20 February 2005

This article starts out with a potential challenge at the first sentence. For example, the figure of speech "MANY ANDS" or "POLYSYNDETON" is straight-forward and literal. It puts equal emphasis on everything connected by each "and". A companion or opposite figure is Asyndeton or "NO ANDS" which intends for the listener or reader to skim over the details to a climax statement that follows. In English, commas typically occupy the spots that could otherwise be "ands" had Polysyndeton been used. Asyndeton is fairly straight-forward too. Figures like Introverted Correspondence and Ejaculation (Ejaculatio) also don't seem to fit scheme or trope. Anyhow, the first sentence appears to need a change to accomodate a number of figures of speech. Mdvaden 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Colloquialism

There's an article on colloquialism, which of the two lists would it fall in? Proto t c 10:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

here we go again

Merge with "Stylistic device"

It looks to me like "Stylistic device" and "Figure of speak" are two independently written articles about (nearly) the same concept. They have a great deal of overlap. Apus 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Surely merging Stylistic device into Figure of speech would be more appropriate, considering the latter has more content? -- the GREAT Gavini 07:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think of them quite differently. To me, one example of a stylistic device is the use of phonological variants of morphemes, such as pronouncing -ing (both in its verbal and nominal uses) as -in', as in running (runnin'). This is one thing that speakers of a language can do in order to adopt a particular speaking style (often in order to 'fit in' to a social situation). There are many 'styles' of talking (including regional or sociocultural dialects, small- and large-scale speech community "in" markers, individuals' idiolects, levels of formality, occupational/ expert vocabulary and "in" markers, expressions of gender, and more). The use of one or another of these styles in order to achieve some goal seems like a good definition of how I understand 'stylistic device'.

A figure of speech, to me, is essentially the same as a conventional metaphor, or metonymy or analogy, or one of the other construal mechanisms that refer to some concept indirectly by invoking a conventional link between some form and some function. This allows language users to talk about abstract things, for example, through the use of concrete and better-defined concepts. For instance, we know that people often talk about states as if they are locations. By using words such as prepositions that are, strictly speaking, spatial, in order to describe abstract states, people are using figures of speech (to be in love, down in the dumps, in a good mood, over a cold, in a bad space, going through a tough time, etc,). Note that novel metaphors, which involve concurrent (synchronic) psychological processes of analogy (or metaphor, or metonymy, etc.), don't count as figures of speech to me, due to their transitory nature. This is the difference, for me, between 'a figure of speech' and 'figurative language' - the latter includes the novel metaphors, novel metonmyies, and some other types of construal mechanisms.

Of course, some construal mechanisms (I use this term as in chap 3 of Croft and Cruse Cognitive Linguistics 2004 Cambridge) aren't figures of speech (such as the word choice of 'foliage' or 'leaves').

It is true that my understanding doesn't match the descriptions given at this time very well, but I thought I'd put my two cents in. --Headfacemouth 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Headfacemouth

Stylistic devices are literary devices. And I think those two articles should be combined. Figure of speech is distinct from stylistic devices, however, from the perspectives of both scope and context.

And this is what I mean. "Structure" is a major section of the article in stylistic device article. How a storyteller or a writer sets up a plot is an important way of contributing style of the language which it is told. But how can plots structures somehow represent figures of speech, when figures of speech are usually less than a sentence long? Figure of speech is something else altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofoo (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What figure of speech is this

Are there  names  for these  figures of speech:

1. Where a described individual stands for a group or class. For example, the soccer mom, the taxpayer, the voter, the liberated woman, etc.?

2. Where a series of individuals holds the same office over many years, as for example, the president, the king, the pope.

I am sure that such terms exist, but I have searched for them in vain.66.249.235.212 12:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Wayne B.

I do not think any word for 2 exists; for 1, one word that fits the description is "archetype" (noun) or "archetypal" for the adjective (e.g. "She was the archetypal soccer mom.") Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have thought about (1). To me, it seems like a borderline case between metaphor and metonymy (I use these terms as in Lakoff and Johnson Metaphors We Live By, 1980, University of Chicago). There is a single individual standing for an entire class of individuals, this is metonymy (think of 'The Times isn't here yet, so we can't begin', which could refer to a single reporter from the Times). However, it is also metaphorical, in that these people act in a similar way (or a way that is interpreted as being similar), much as a 'real Don Juan' is the name of an individual human that applies to a class of people who act in a certain way, or 'a real Hitler' for people who act in a dictatorial way, etc. However, rather than being used to refer to an individual, 'the soccer mom' is an image of a generic individual replacing and standing for the entire category and population that falls within that category. In that sense, it's much more abstract. It's personifying a concept which is abstract [though the speaker may assume that data on what the 'real' or 'average' soccer mom (etc.) actually could be obtained by somehow "averaging" hundreds of real-life situations, which is ridiculous]. I would suggest that it is thoroughly abstract, instead, and that the speaker's prototype image is being extended via a combination of metaphor and metonymy to stand for both the concept of soccer moms (etc,) and the entire population of soccer moms (etc,). --Headfacemouth 07:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a name for (2), but I'd say that it is a situation where the referent of the word changes over time, as the people who it refers to at different times are taking turns assuming a role. In this way, it reminds me of personal pronouns (such as I, you, he, she, it). These are different depending on the speech context (who's around, who's talking at the moment), but have fixed meanings, regardless.--Headfacemouth 07:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could have written it here. Anyhow, I put an answer for the first question just below this. Mdvaden 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What Figure >> Synechdoche

The #1 question is Synechdoche (of the part). Included in E. W. Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible.

Are you familiar with the scriptural passage where Joshua fought Amalek in Exodus? The passage says that "Joshua" defeated the Amalekites. The passage shows that "Joshua" - one man - represents the entire army, for he did not do it single-handed.

Bullinger's book is a marvelous work, for anybody who is unfamiliar with it.

Hope that helps on #1. For #2, I don't think that's a figure of speech. Can you write a sentence similar to what you had in mind?

Mdvaden 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"I told you a million times."

Does the sentence "I told you a million times." count as a figure of speech? From time to time, you here this from others, especially when they want to remind you of something. But how may times they said is much lesser than it says. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.126.41 (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

That is hyperbole. ghansel 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a hyperbole, and it is a figure of speech. If someone uses hyperbole on a daily basis, he/she has a figure of speech that is exaggerated. Tofoo (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"How this page should be composed. Very important"

Although this page is a very good page for reference, perhaps it should only be compossed of words which are useful, in terms of

Are you suggesting removing or isolating a few words which are not technically figures of speech? Or did you mean something more along the lines of a list of "most common figures" used in English language discussions?Mdvaden 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP

This page has been vandalized! ADMIN REQUESTED! Stinkman 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of stupid, but I have to get back to my class. I am going to completely blank this page to try to get a bot to revert the page. Sorry for the inconvience. Stinkman 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhyme schemes???

I'm puzzled about why, directly under the heading "Schemes", there is a link to the article "Rhyme schemes" (with the text "Main article: Rhyme schemes").

It seems to me that "Figure of speech" refers to figures used in prose and not necessarily poetry.

Of course, any figure of speech used in prose could be also used in poetry. But not vice versa. In particular, a rhyme scheme does not strike me as applying to prose. For this reason, I propose removing the link to "Rhyme schemes".Daqu 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CORUANS - Country Or Regions Used As Names

CORUANS - Country Or Regions Used As Names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coruans

Is there a proper name for this sort of thing?

Things like " what do the Danes call Danish Pastry - Answer - Viennese Breads....

What do they call Brazil nuts in Brazil? etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you made that up. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Literary Elements

Much of this list should be under the heading "Literary elements," as that is what they are taught as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfred (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to rewrite intro regarding "literal language"

These sentences seem to contradict each other. Is there a "not" missing? Should it say "do not necessarily have a concept"?

Note that all theories of meaning necessarily have a concept of "literal language" (see literal and figurative language). Under theories that do not, figure of speech is not an entirely coherent concept.

96.236.158.55 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The logical flaw seems elsewhere to me. If all theories necessarily have a concept of 'literal language', then there is no such thing as theories that do not - though it idds easy to conceive that under them, 'figure of speech' would not be entirely coherent.

MacAuslan (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello; I stumbled on this page (from sudden death (sport), where another reader insisted that non-native English speakers need to know early on that sudden death is a figure of speech). I read the lead, had the same problem as the first user commenting in this section, and restored the negative to the 4th sentence. Having now read this discussion, I agree with the first user as to the location of the error. I am a hillbilly but do not entirely understand what the 4th and 5th sentences of the lead are trying to say: Any "theory of meaning" for human beings would have to have a concept of "literal language" (as it is bound to meaning), though it might not encompass figures of speech. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Now superseded, as I have done the "clean-up" requested by the icon at the top of the article. The passage we have been discussing is now the second paragraph of the lead, and its meaning and importance still escapes me. The second sentence is full of weasel words. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Having returned to do minor clean-up on the introductory paragraphs to schema/trope, I see a major problem that it looks like other editors have broached here: The article deals with two separate topics: (1) figures of speech to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally, and (2) categories of word usage, many of which (such as the example presented for a schema, using apposition) do not invite figurative meaning. How to resolve this? --Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an External Link: page N/A now

Going to delete one external link Figures of Speech: Scripture because the page is being removed. The page has been on my site www.mdvaden.com for quite some time, but I'm removing the resource from my server to conserve on traffic to the site. There are several other pages on the internet that list an outline of Dr. Bullinger's Figures of Speech. I can find one, but anyone editing here, feel free to find an appropriate one that is easy to read.Mdvaden (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

???A??? rhetoric

In 40 years of teaching and studying English Literature I have never heard of 'rhetoric' used to mean 'a figure of speech, as in l.1 "A figure of speech, sometimes termed a rhetoric, or locution". So I looked.

The nearest the Oxford English Dictionary gets to this (s.v. rhetoric,n.¹) is as a plural noun, meaning 2. c.: "pl. Elegant expressions; rhetorical flourishes. Also, rhetorical terms"

giving the following quotations:

1426 LYDG. De Guil. Pilgr. 19774 That poete, Wyth al hys rethorykes swete. 1543 BALE Yet a Course 26 Neuer coude tolwyn throughlye knowe what these rhetoryckes ment, as are denuncyacyon, deteccyon, and presentacyon. 1589 PUTTENHAM Eng. Poesie III. ii. (Arb.) 151 Graue and wise counsellours..do much mislike all scholasticall rhetoricks. 1628 WITHER Brit. Rememb. 42b, Their fantastique Rhetoriques, Who trim their Poesies with schooleboy-tricks. 1942 W. STEVENS Parts of World 143 Midsummer love and softest silences, Weather of night creatures, whistling all day, too, And echoing rhetorics more than our own. 1949 KOESTLER Promise & Fulfilment II. v. 274 It was a disappointing speech{em}emotional rhetorics without a constructive programme. 1976 Sunday Times (Lagos) 3 Oct. 10/4 We cannot decide on the fundamental values and goals that will bind the present and future generations on the basis of vague ideas, irrelevant foreign slogans and rhetorics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacAuslan (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In Italian figures of speech are called rhetorical figures. Rhetoric was invented with Latin not with English :-) --Sum (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mempsis

[1] Should this word be in the lists in the articles? Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

There is a term that describes the continued use of obsolete (or nearly obsolete) words. For example, one might still hear "dial the number," "dial tone," or "dial-up access" even though rotary dials have largely disappeared. Similarly, most phones don't actually "ring." Also "radio dial", "on the FM dial" etc; a "shift key" doesn't "shift" anything (unless one happens to have a fairly old typewriter); and "cc:" usually no longer involves any carbon paper. "Anachronism" might apply, but it isn't the term I'm thinking of. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More examples: uppercase and lowercase (and thus case-sensitive) are typesetting terms, but generally these words are used in a non-typesetting context. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone elsewhere suggested that I'm thinking of "dead metaphor"s. I'm not sure whether I am or not, as I couldn't make much sense of that article ("Kidney bean" is a dead metaphor?) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet another example involving the telephone: we still say "the phone is ringing," though most telephones (and certainly all mobile phones) do not have actual bells. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The word you're looking for seems to be skeuomorph, according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22840833 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.30.86 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The four fundamental operations

What does "fundating" mean in "the four fundating principles"? Myrvin (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction of major error in introduction: regarding literal meaning figures

Just noticed that the introduction had a huge error. Figures of speech were introduced as having meanings deviating from literal use. The fact that Polysyndeton or many-conjunctions was present in the article, this should have jumped out a long time ago. Figures of speech include words used with literal meaning in special arrangements as well. Polysyndeton or "many ands" for example, uses the word "and" literally every times its repeated. So the fix is an obvious and high-priority fix.

If anyone has a better choice of vocabulary on how to phrase or write this essential inclusion, let's hear it. Thanks. Mdvaden (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The OED has

a. Any of the various ‘forms’ of expression, deviating from the normal arrangement or use of words, which are adopted in order to give beauty, variety, or force to a composition; e.g. Aposiopesis, Hyperbole, Metaphor, etc.

Myrvin (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Examples of figures of speech

Cats and Dogs

The first example of figures of speech, "It's raining cats and dogs", is an idiom. Which is confusing since idioms are not mentioned in the intro as a form of figure of speech. I think that several of the other examples may also be idioms and not representative for the topic. Krausman (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be a metaphor, which is in the tropes. If you look at idiom it says that an idiom is a metaphor. Myrvin (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think all those examples are metaphors. Perhaps we need more varied examples. Myrvin (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a debate whether an idiom is a figure of speech. Anyway I think the examples should be more general. For instance the "raining cats and dogs" example makes no sense without prior knowledge of that saying. I think that would benefit those of us that do not have English as their first language. Krausman (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've started this. But I think there should be very few examples here. Myrvin (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done it now and replaced the original. Myrvin (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To Run Up

The third example given ("She ran up...") requires that the reader be familiar with the idiomatic/colloquial meaning of "to run up." I've rarely encountered that meaning in modern English and had to read the explanation to "get it." I'd suggest using a different example, e.g. most any of the examples listed under Zeugma, Type 2, e.g.

   Eggs and oaths are soon broken.

Or, to avoid an explicit aphorism, the quotation

   You are free to execute your laws and your citizens as you see fit.
   (William Riker, Star Trek: The Next Generation)

would be effective and contemporary. -- Jimmy Hers (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Info about article

For simplicity, this article divides the figures between schemes and tropes, but does not further sub-classify them (e.g., "Figures of Disorder"). Within each category, words are listed alphabetically. Most entries link to a page that provides greater detail and relevant examples, but a short definition is placed here for convenience. Some of those listed may be considered rhetorical devices, which are similar in many ways.

This paragraph mainly describes the usage style IN the article. Most entries link to a page... may not be of any value to people taking a print of the article. Please modify that paragraph. Gauravjuvekar (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with <<Most entries link to a page... may not be of any value to people taking a print of the article. Please modify that paragraph. >> That would not pose a problem if they also take a print of the linked articles. which is just as realistic as them taking a print of the article in the first place. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC).

Parallel irony not in Wikipedia

Like most entries in the Tropes list, parallel irony is a hyperlink to another article. But clicking thereon, you simply dump the reader at the top of article Irony, which doesn't mention it (other than the trivial "Redirected from parallel irony"--ain't that ironic?). Hence, either parallel irony is not covered in Wikipedia, or it can't be located.

The ostensible solution is to add a section Parallel irony to article Irony. (That is, assuming parallel irony differs from irony, since the Tropes list also has entry irony.)

--Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

after only a hasty google search i am leaning to conclude, that "parallel irony" is not an existing category, though sometimes is used as a pairing of words in the sense "double, or deeper (perhaps hidden) irony of a situation". and still, i agree with the point that once a non trivial expressiopn is hyperlinked in WP, it is only correct if there is an explanation at hand to the intended meaning of that expression. just my 2 cents. cheers. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC).

A number

How many figures of speech are there? 69.122.92.17 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a great question. It seems like there are two main ways in which "figure of speech" is used. There is the objective "figure of speech" which is a way of saying a certain thing in a different way. Instead of saying "she's really pretty", a person says "she is a tall glass of water on a summer day" that is the first kind of figure of speech.

Then there is the subjective "figure of speech" which is a way somebody says things. For instance, Yoda has a figure of speech that has the OSV grammar. Tof\ o (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

i dont think Yoda's (unconventional order of words in every sentence) is a good example for the figure of speech meant here. the first example, preceeding yoda's "personal peculiar way of talking" is a valid example though. yoda's backward order of words in every sentence is more like a personal voice, or like an accent, or letssay like stuttering - something remarkable (personal feature, making easy to recognize the speaker) about the way the person speaks, but not necessarily touching the way how he/she rhetorically conveys his/her message to the audience. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC). see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Figure_of_speech#Figurative_Language 89.134.199.32 (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

added in section "Four rhetorical operations" the pronunciation of greek words

i guess it doesnt hurt to have the phonetical transscription next to the original greek words, for the benefit of those without a robust knowledge of the greek alphabet(yes, like myself). cheers. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC).

Not to nitpick, but i think you meant not a phonetic transcription, but a Latin transcription ;) (two things quite different) Regardless, cheers for taking the time to do such :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The pocket definitions in the scheme list are weak

Many of the brief definitions in the scheme list are off-key or downright wrong. They need to be worked through and corrected by people who have read and understood the original articles. This is not that easy -- many of the original articles are themselves difficult to understand.

2001:67C:10EC:578F:8000:0:0:383 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Near-like Synonymous terms between "Par'hyponoian" and "Paraprosdokian"

Par'hyponoian: "...is a logical or thought trope, consisting in the replacement of a second part in a phrase or a text, that would have been logically expected from the first part"

Paraprosdokian: "scheme figure of speech where the latter part of a text is unexpected in a way that it causes the reader to interpret the first part"

Paraprosdokian is a more known term than Par'hyponoian according to Google search engine results (50k+ vs 2k+). Maybe remove Par'hyponoian or conglomerate into Paraprosdokian via aliases/subtypes...?

SEems quite superfluous anyway. FunnyKenji08 (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in your observation and wise in your proposal. I will go ahead and remove the lesser known term. Trakking (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Are figures of speech "intentional"?

@Kent Dominic: I'm not sure intentional is quite the right word. Figurative language is baked into our day-to-day conversation so naturally that 1) I doubt there is any deliberateness behind it a good deal of the time and 2) plenty of figures of speech go the way of idioms, dead metaphors, etc. where the figurativeness has long been a fossilized fixture and the original meaning lost. They are "sometimes intentional", certainly. Any other thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, if you think I'm overthinking it, you can straightup tell me. Today's not been my sharpest day. Wolfdog (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC))

It's an intentional deviation that factors into what becomes a figure of speech. Otherwise, an unqualified deviation might result in an unintentional rhetorical effect. (See Yogi Berra.) Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

How about going from a word or phrase that intentionally deviates from to a word or phrase originating as an intentional deviation from? Wolfdog (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see "originiating" as a prolixity in that iteration. I'd almost be fine with "A figure of speech or rhetorical figure is a word or phrase as an intentional deviation from straightforward language use or literal meaning..." except "a word or phrase as" is a bit equivocal (and could be deleted to improve the meaning) since lots of clauses are construed as figures of speech. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't feel better to me but rather clunkier. I suppose we'll keep it. Wolfdog (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)