Monday, October 6, 2008

We had a very amusing mix-up today in class, where Carly accidentally attributed a lovely passage from Sidney(..." freely ranging in the zodiac of his own wit.")to Shelley. It's a simple mistake--they have essays of the same title and names that start with an 'S'--but I wonder if perhaps Shelley and Sidney will end up intertwining in their arguments. I haven't read Shelley yet, and will be interested to see if this is the case or not.

And this great french phrase employed by Frye trahison des clercs-- treason of the clerks. The context Frye was using it in was of intellectual declination, but I have to confess that the first thing that popped into my mind when I heard this phrase was the Monty Python short about office clerks who revolt and turn their building into a pirate ship. Anyway.

And two very cumbersome but interesting words. Motonomy, where you say a word that means something else other than what you are directly refering to and synectequa, which has the same function, but moves in a different direction. At least that's what I think it means.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Why the curious spelling of metonymy and synecdoche?

As for what they mean, they're as confused as Sidney and Shelley from your example. One is taken to be using the part for the whole or variations of the type (synecdoche, the other is something like that.

synecdoche: "The US is in talks with Syria" (whole for the part); "the crown of England" (a part for a whole)

metonymy: "the Crown entered the war today" (a part used to refer to a whole).