Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Requests’

My synecdoche is acting up

Posted in Grammar, etc., tagged , , , on January 26, 2010| 1 Comment »

No one really asked for more rhetorical devices, but I’m on a roll. Here are four more of my favorites:

To use metallage (“Meh-TALL-uh-gee”) is to use a word or phrase as an object in a sentence. I’m going to go all “Pulp Fiction” on you and mention that scene with the Gimp. Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) says, “You hear me talkin’, hillbilly boy? I ain’t through with you by a damn sight. I’ma get medieval on your ass.”

In that same vein, periphrasis (“Per-IF-ruh-sis”) uses a description as a name. Think Harry Potter and “He Who Shall Not Be Named.” And I’d better not hear Eddie refer to me as “The Old Ball and Chain.” Or “Fat Ass,” for that matter.

Two more devices — metonymy and synecdoche — seem to be difficult for many people to understand, and there are plenty who say they are the same. They are not.

Metonymy (“Meh-TAH-no-mee”) refers to describing something indirectly by using similar items. For example, you can say “the deep” when you are talking about the ocean.

Synecdoche (“Sin-ECK-doh-key”) swaps a thing for a collection of things, or a part for a whole. For example, the bank foreclosed on our neighbor’s house. The representatives of the bank did it, but it is easier to say “the bank.”

The difference between metonymy and synecdoche is this: When A is used to refer to B, it is a synecdoche if A is a component of B, and a metonym if A is commonly associated with B but not actually part of its whole. Representatives are part of a bank, therefore it is synecdoche. But the ocean is deep (deep water is like an ocean), so it is metonymy.

Got it? Good, ’cause I don’t wanna go all medieval on you.

Read Full Post »

Hypophora? I hardly know her!

Posted in Grammar, etc., tagged , , , on January 24, 2010| 3 Comments »

When last I blogged, I mentioned “litotes,” a rhetorical device that is similar to a double negative. This device, pronounced “LIE-tuh-teez,” allows someone to make a point by denying the opposite. For example, if I said, all regal-like, “We are not amused,” you would understand that all is not well, and that you should perhaps vacate the scene.

There are loads of other devices. As soon as I point them out, you’ll start seeing them everywhere.

Take, for example, chiasmus (“Kie-AZ-mus”), a sentence that presents a mirror image of a concept. I often say that I work to live, not live to work, even though I do love my job.

Perhaps the most well-known chiasmus came from John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

Two other devices are similar: antithesis and anadiplosis. Antithesis establishes a clear, contrasting relationship between ideas. For example, original moonwalker Neil Armstrong said of the 1969 landing: “One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Some examples of antithesis are chiastic, but not all. And if it is chiastic, then just call it a chiasmus. Antithesis = general contrast; chiasmus = specific mirroring.

Anadiplosis (“Anna-di-PLOH-sis”) goes one step further by repeating the last/first structure, but it is not a mirror. In “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” — a dreadful movie — Yoda said, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Do you want to know more about rhetorical devices? Of course you do. And asking and answering a question is called hypophora (“High-PAH-for-uh”).

Read Full Post »

Lawzy, Miss Scarlett!

Posted in Grammar, etc., tagged , , on January 23, 2010| 3 Comments »

"I don't know nothing 'bout birthin' babies!"

I don’t know nothing ’bout grammar. That’s good, because I write a grammar blog. (Well, grammar and other things.)

You might ask, “Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout Willis?”

That, my friends, is a double negative. What I really said was, “I know something about grammar.”

Pink Floyd sang, “We don’t need no education,” but what they were really saying was, “We do need education” (whether they wanted to or not). The “not” in the contraction cancels out the “no,” resulting in a positive statement.

Usually people use the construction to indicate the opposite, though, like Prissy (Butterfly McQueen) in “Gone with the Wind“: “I don’t know nothing ’bout birthin’ babies!”

So Miss Scarlett was in luck. Yet she wasn’t. You see?

Similar to this concept is a rhetorical device called “litotes.” I’ll tackle that topic in an upcoming post.

Read Full Post »

Part I: When Beth met Eddie

Posted in Random, tagged , , on January 8, 2010| 6 Comments »

SHE SAID:

It was a dark and stormy night.

OK, not really.

It was a beautiful sunny day in Savannah in March 1992. I had started a new job as communications coordinator at SCAD, and my office was on the third floor of Kanter Hall (now Morris Hall).

My predecessor was a pack rat, and I wanted to make a clean start. I loaded up two boxes with old files and put in a work order to have a member of the facilities crew move them to storage in Wallin Hall.

A couple of days later, a posse of guys in weight belts filed into my office looking for the boxes listed on the work order.

Smart ass that I am, I said, “It takes all of you to move two boxes?”

HE SAID

“The message we got was to pick up boxes. It could have been 100.”

She was very nicely dressed in a skirt, I remember. Nothing more attractive than a nicely dressed smart mouth. James G. still calls her “swift mouth.” I was in charge of the facilities crew that included James G., Brenon, Eggy, Patrick, Brian, Rambo, Joseph, Joel, James R. and Jimbo.

Here is some of the crew: James, Brenon, me, Patrick, Jimbo and Joel. Those were the days of James’ jheri curl. What can I say about the grease? Notice Pat’s weight belt. He was so skinny, I can’t believe we even found one to fit him.

Here is a later picture of the crew, circa 1993 or so.

Me, Joel, Jimbo, Wolverine, Brenon, Rambo, Bear, James, Alex, Brian, Patrick and Joel.

SHE SAID

I think he brought all those guys with him that day. I remember he led the way, followed closely by James and Joseph. He and James are both tall fellows, well over 6 feet. I felt dwarfed, plus silly that they were all there for just two boxes. They took the boxes and left, but it would not be the last time I saw the Weight Belt Brigade.

Up next: The pursuit begins

Read Full Post »

Who vs. whom

Posted in Grammar, etc., tagged , , on December 19, 2009| Leave a Comment »

(Another “by request” post!)

People really seem to have a hard time with “who” and “whom.” The difference is that “who” is the subject and “whom” is the object.

Examples:

Who ate all the banana bread? “Who” is the subject who did the action. (In this case, it was Eddie.)

To whom did Tom give head lice? Here, “Tom” is the subject who gave lice to some unfortunate soul. (And that’s just a joke.)

Here is a trick: If you can replace the word with “him,” use “whom” (think “m”). If you can replace it with “he,” use “who.” Rewrite the sentence to see if it makes sense.

To whom would you like to speak? I would like to speak to him.

Who shall I say is calling? You can say he is calling.

Now I’m off to make more banana bread before the phone starts ringing and my head begins to itch.

Read Full Post »

That which who

Posted in Grammar, etc., tagged , , on December 18, 2009| 2 Comments »

By request (A request! How exciting!), here is a tutorial about “that,” “which” and “who.”

First, let’s tackle “that” vs. “who.” It is easy: Use “who” when you are referring to people, and “that” when you are referring to things. If you feel strongly about your pets, they can be “who” too.

Examples:

The man who gave me “The International” now lives in Richmond Hill.

Trish is the chicken who lives with us.

The cops shot the chimp that ripped off that lady’s face. (You could use “who” here, but I prefer not to give that level of respect to that particular chimp.)

The book that sits on my nightstand is some trashy romance novel.

Now let’s talk about “that” vs. “which,” which seems to be more difficult. THAT was the proper use of “which.” Use it only when you can use a comma before it. Otherwise, use “that.” In other words, “that” is a crucial part of the sentence and describes a particular kind of thing, and “which” begins a clause that could be thrown out if necessary.

Examples:

Heidi and John held a New Year’s Eve party that resulted in a five-alarm fire.

Heidi and John’s New Year’s Eve party, which resulted in a five-alarm fire, was the talk of the neighborhood.

See the difference? Many academics don’t. Now you are smarter than a 20th grader.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts