Talk:Metaphor

Metaphors in Science
Am I missing something? Is there a reason this one sentence excuse for a section is in this article? Is it an artefact from a more fleshed-out version, or a placeholder? Because currently it just looks ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.42.161 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Metaphor vs. metonymy, synecdoche, etc.
This section is really misleading and much worse than what was here years ago (the result of a long chain of edits I was involved in). To first distinguish metaphor from simile and then claim that "synecdoche and metonymy" are types of metaphor is deeply misleading. The footnote given for this sentence references the now *obsolete* definition of metaphor that basically means a metaphor is any figure of speech. There is a crucial difference between metonymy and metaphor: namely, that metonymy works only by association where metaphor works by transfering a *quality* between two previously unassociated things. In other words, metaphor links two previously unlinked domains (e.g. anatomy and astronomy in "your eyes are two suns") and metonymy reenforces an existing link (e.g. the president and the White House in "The white house said..."). I'm hesitant to simply reinstate the old versions since a lot of time has passed and surely some thought went into the changes, but I'm surprised to see there is no discussion here at all of the old changes.so what does it mean

If I ever get time, I'll look for some references and clean this up.

Tom (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Diaphoric and epiphoric metaphor
I would suggest adding a section that describes these kinds of metaphors as they have been commonly addressed in linguistic literature.Thompsma (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fail for our future metal overlords
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/BBN_Technologies_awarded_intelligence_funding_for_metaphor_research_999.html

Can we include a note about how much harder than the hardest water is it for computers to deal with metaphors? Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Comparison with other types of analogy"
This Wikipedia article (metaphors) seems very useful and appropriate, but I detect a weakness in this section (Comparison with other types of analogy). What drew me to the Wikipedia article in the first place was the prospect of discovering useful comparisons to other verbal forms for discussion with my children. The Columbia Encyclopedia reference seems to me (especially if it is taken in proper context) to obfuscate rather than elucidate comparisons. If the quote taken from Columbia Encyclopedia is an accurate portrayal of that publication's perception of the comparison...Then my own sense is that Columbia Encyclopedia held a fuzzy and inaccurate perception of how metaphors and similes compare. In other words, it seems to me Columbia Encyclopedia did a very poor job of explaining, especially with this particular quote, and it would be worthwhile to consider throwing that quote out. Review every source you can find on what makes a simile a simile and then do the same for metaphors. The difference is not in whether one or the other draws a perfect equivalency but the difference lies, rather, in complexity. Similes tend to be 1-off comparisons (hot like fire) whereas metaphors are characterized by much richer complexity, with layers or series of multiple analogs knitted together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWSager (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have fixed one problem in the current paragraph on similes: the middle two sentences are not about similes but about analogy! So I have pulled those two sentences out and put them at the end of the section. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"A metaphor is a person..."
"A metaphor is a person that describes a subject by asserting..."

A person? I'm not familiar with the use of "metaphor" to refer to the speaker themselves, but it's the first line of the article, so I'd assume that's received group consensus. Is "person" being used in this case as some linguistics term with which I'm unfamiliar? If that's the case, we should definitely provide the word with a relevant definition.

162.223.105.246 (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Metaphor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100912170625/http://www.sylviaplathforum.com:80/index.shtml to http://www.sylviaplathforum.com/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Might you consider a link to -- well, it's my page, so sue me -- 1001 Metaphors by Crowd Sourcing http://www.niquette.com/books/sophmag/1001metaphors.html which now numbers 3001 entries and is growing day by day. Paul Niquette (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Three years later and the Niquette Collection of has grown to more than 7,000 entries. Not to make a nuisance of myself, but my great grandchildren are teenagers and sure would be pleased to see an External link to http://www.niquette.com/books/sophmag/1001metaphors.html on this page. Paul Niquette (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Language is amusing
On a prominent Language site, someone posted:

"Many a time I've asked what the difference is between an analogy and a metaphor. I've asked it to my teacher, on internet sites, to my parents, so on and so forth. I got a different answer every time, and I never fully grasped what the difference is, so what is the difference?"

Well today, I have read about a dozen different web pages - including several on Wikipedia - that all have different definitions for analogy and metaphor - each explained in voluminous detail with justifications - and every one is entirely different.

Most have analogy and metaphor as two different things that are both examples of a more general group, but this Wikipedia page uniquely has metaphor as "a type of analogy".

Etc.

It's amusing that despite the obviousness of this situation (each of the top web search results has an entire different and incompatible answer) - I have yet to come across anyone who is willing to admit that large groups of highly educated, well spoken people have entirely different definitions.

What is sad is that I've seen people belittle other people for "incorrect" uses of these words, when there is clearly no "correct" definitions. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

is the word metaphor autological
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c3:4201:d70:edbe:79ba:f847:1756 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be understood as homological in the sense that it's a confix (meta- + -phore) literally meaning "carrying beyond", even though the fact that this is not an attested meaning in English would weaken the autological property. However, this surface meaning was in fact evident in its ultimate etymological ancestor in Ancient Greek, μεταφέρω. It literally signified, and was used in the sense of, change or transfer in general, but was then figuratively used to mean a linguistic transfer of the literal sense. Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Post-Renaissance use of metaphors
According to the linguist Anatoly Liberman, "the use of metaphors is relatively late in the modern European languages; it is, in principle, a post-Renaissance phenomenon". This is patently false, is it not? All languages in all times use metaphor! Perhaps Liberman meant something more specific than this? I'm removing the sentence, but feel free to discuss if you think I'm in the wrong. Wolfdog (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely needs more information. The Scholastics certainly had a good idea of metaphor, from Aristotle. And to say they did not "use" is unfalsifiable: we don't know what people used in the European vernaculars because we have no records. And biblical "typological" language (Mary is a tower, Jesus is a priest like Melchizek) was ubiquitous in medieval religious literature. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional definition
In the beginning section I added another definition of a metaphor because it could appeal to a different audience. I also added simple examples. I created a new section called "Metaphor versus Simile" because this is a common comparison, and this information could be useful in differentiating the two terms. There is a section on the page that talks about the Bible therefore I added an example of a metaphor from the Bible to show the representation. In the "As Style and Speech Writing" section I added more content and used an example from a speech of Martin Luther King. This is valuable because he had many famous speeches and it is relevant to show his use of metaphor.Under the "Historical Theories" section I added ideas from another Theorist because it allows more people to relate to the subject. In the "Larger Applications" section I added more content about real life application. This is valuable because it helps the readers understand the greater purpose of metaphors. ENG Writer12 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Much of what you added was either redundant with existing text or cited unreliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding the Music and arts industry?
This without mentioning right at the beginning that Michael Jackson's metaphor video effect was the first to be implemented, which is technically important as it was close to impossible is on the Internet since the Internet age didn't banned people like conservative editors. Since we wouldn't be here on the Internet without music, color television and Music Videos who has speeden up everything to be fluent. You arts history studied ones who are boring like a sleeping pille with your pendrance editing and deleting already existed Wikipedia entrys who had Michaelbeen almost out of everyone since the 80s. You always want to tell your history of analogue arts nonsense as people are interestes first on tempo. We with groove will stay as rebels as we were first on the internet. Wikipedia is now read by the slow people also who want everything to continue to be slow. No problem! You don't know contemporary! Learn first contemporary or Fuck off all art history conservatives! Also block them from the forges of curriculum manipulations from them. First a video, then this. Edit it back to cool. Don't let slow peoole get overhand. Groove is it what the worlds makes fast. 91.141.67.126 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Julian Jaynes
It is not clear to me that the material based on Jaynes should be here. Shouldn't it be moved to Conceptual metaphor? Opinions? Skyerise (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)