Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. > >Sally -- > >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 :) Ray.