Talk:Figure of speech

message: 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)
thread_title:  Figurative Language 

message: 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)
thread_title: Votes for deletion

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why "axiom"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Th term needs to be sorted out 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with "Stylistic device" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What figure of speech is this 

message: 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)
thread_title: What Figure >> Synechdoche

message: 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)
thread_title:  "I told you a million times." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "How this page should be composed. Very important" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Rhyme schemes???

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you made that up. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CORUANS - Country Or Regions Used As Names

message: 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)
thread_title:  Literary Elements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need to rewrite intro regarding "literal language" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleting an External Link: page N/A now 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ???A??? rhetoric 

message: Should this word be in the lists in the articles? Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mempsis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Question 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Correction of major error in introduction: regarding literal meaning figures 

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: Done it now and replaced the original. Myrvin (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of figures of speech 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  To Run Up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Info about article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Parallel irony'' not in Wikipedia

message: How many figures of speech are there? 69.122.92.17 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A number 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  added in section "Four rhetorical operations" the pronunciation of greek words 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The pocket definitions in the scheme list are weak 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Near-like Synonymous terms between "Par'hyponoian" and "Paraprosdokian"