Talk:Literal and figurative language: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Rap Section== |
==Rap Section== |
||
homosexuals are prone to liking hunter singleton==Defintion== |
|||
I think the rap is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Entries should be written in prose in order to be concise. [[User:Mirage465|Mirage465]] ([[User talk:Mirage465|talk]]) 05:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Defintion== |
|||
Great start [[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]]. I'm a "newbie" (a.k.a.: F.N.G.) to Wikipedia, so bear with me. I'd be glad to communicate with you on this article/subject. |
Great start [[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]]. I'm a "newbie" (a.k.a.: F.N.G.) to Wikipedia, so bear with me. I'd be glad to communicate with you on this article/subject. |
||
Revision as of 20:59, 21 February 2012
Philosophy: Logic / Language Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rap Section
homosexuals are prone to liking hunter singleton==Defintion== Great start Ryguasu. I'm a "newbie" (a.k.a.: F.N.G.) to Wikipedia, so bear with me. I'd be glad to communicate with you on this article/subject.
Here's why I've deleted/replaced a couple of your phrases/sentences: XD
"...figurative language uses more poetic senses."
Although it's used a lot in poetic senses, figurative language is used in a lot more contexts than just poetic-sounding language. When I shake my fist at someone on the freeway and call them an "asshole," I'm using figurative language (the figure of speech is synecdoche) without being poetic g in any sense of the word.
"In literal language, truth onditions work out well, while in figurative language, they may not."
IMO the definition of terms in this sentence will be unclear to most general readers of an encyclopedia. What are "truth conditions"? If it's a technical term, we'd better define it.
Also, I moved the following to this retarded page
- jgijfgijgdopji lj to divide language into literal and figurative? What is gained thereby? (Lakoff provides some insight here.)d
- Why would people prefer not to view language with this divide?
- How does this connect to theories of truth?"
These are all needed additions. The last one, especially, shows the importance and relevance of this subject to a broad range of disciplines, including theories of knowledge, cognition, language development, etc., etc.
And now....here's an explanations for one of my suspect assertions :-)
"Some have boiled down the more than two hundred and fifty figures described in classical and traditional linguistics into two: metaphor and metonymy."
I know this from research, and my additions to Further Reading document reflect the "classical and traditional" end of this statement. But I need to go back and document specifically which modern analyses have done the boiling. jstanley01 Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 12:45 CDT.
Types of figurative language
Isn't it logical to add to this page a list of types of figurative langiage, such as metaphor, similie, etc.? Or is there such a list on some other term? 80.178.164.204 08:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Moved to discussion
Don't converse in article...203.218.79.155 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- ):):):)It is a very hard type of learning and it is very hard to learn the different things that it has in it because
life is not easy and that i guess is the way that life works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -CULOchi
Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v5029336p8105433/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)