Re: Meta, Meto, Simil, Figurative
|From:||Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, May 26, 1999, 6:00|
At 6:08 pm -0600 25/5/99, Ed Heil wrote:
>Sally and Ray --
>I would have to go read _Speaker's Meaning_ or _Poetic Diction_ more
>closely to be sure, but I believe that....
>..when Owen Barfield denies that words held a 'metaphorical' meaning
>to premoderns, he is using a very restrictive definition of
>'metaphorical', one which you might use in the phrase "mere metaphor."
> In this sense, you use a metaphor when you speak of A as if it were
>B, in order to attribute to it some quality C which is possessed by B,
>and that's all. You might as well have attributed quality C directly
>to A. On the contrary, Barfield would say that when you spoke of A as
>if it were B (especially if A was an abstraction which did not have
>any other name than B), it was because there was some deep conceptual
>and/or real unity between A and B.
I see - even so, I'm not sure that I'd go along entirely with Barfield even
on that. I'd find it surprising if there were no examples of the latter in
premoderns. But I agree it's probable that some of the earlier uses of
'metaphora' were more losely defined than the strict definition Barfield
seems to give.
>To some degree Lakoff captures
>this in his work on metaphor, but he tends to come at it from a very
>empiricist (and humanist?) perspective that puts a very different spin
>on it than Barfield does.
>I'm really curious now; what bad press did George Lakoff get that
>caused you not to read him?
I've followed the replies to this. Interesting - must look out Lakoff :)