Figures of Speech Served Fresh

Dear Figaro,
What would you call the figure of speech in this statement "The Ball is in the Parent's court" ??
Tara

Dear Tara,
It's an IDIOM, a group of words that comprise a unique meaning. The metaphorical ball lies in the parents' court because it's their turn to take action. Since the idiom comes from tennis, Figaro recommends sending it back with plenty of spin.
Fig.

Hey Figaro, I've got a couple of question for you.I've been reading your book and after reading about prolepsis (the anticipatory figure), I figured it required a rhetorical question in order to be effective. Is this true? Also, what other uses are there for a rhetorical queston? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
Regards, David

Now, David, you may object to my answer, saying, "How does this guy even know what he's talking about?" Well, for one thing, I know I just pulled off a PROLEPSIS, a figure of thought that anticipates the opponent's point and counters it in advance. Watch the climactic scene in "8-Mile," when Eminem undercuts a rap opponent by insulting himself. Briliant. Neither of these examples required a rhetorical question.

What the rhetorical question really does is inject a mild irony into a statement. You pretend you know the answer, while letting your audience in on the pretense. It's a way of either getting your audience on your side or throwing your opponent off balance. After all, a rhetorical question is often hard to answer "yes" or "no." Isn't it?

Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Who is the art director responsible for the attractive, witty and intelligent illustrations? Thanks, Figaro.
Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,
That would be the attractive, witty and intelligent Figaro. To impress you even more, he uses really crummy cheap software.
Figaro

I have a question for you. I read this in an E.B. White essay: "a cowbell made for him a sweeter sound than the churchbell." This reminded me of a sentence from Frederick Douglass which said something like "the underground railroad could more descriptively be called the upperground railroad."

Is there a name for this figure of speech, where the first part of word is changed, but the last part of the word stays the same? It's kind of like epistrophe, but it's not...or is it?

Eric

Dear Eric,

No, it's not an EPISTROPHE, which repeats a whole word at the end of consecutive clauses. It's more of a HOMOIOTELEUTON (ho-moi-o-te-LEU-ton), which repeats the ending syllable. It's from the Greek, meaning "same ending." But what makes the White quote notable isn't the rhyme. It's also a SYNECHDOCHE (sin-EK-do-kee), the scale-changing figure. Using bells to stand for farming and religion, it's a striking example.

Fig.

Dear Figaro: What does it mean when a person says "Don't dance on your own table," in the context of a discussion about building teamwork?
Ricardo

Dear Ricardo,
If you're wearing nothing but a g-string, you'll get better tips if you shake your booty elswhere. It's a metaphorical kind of IDIOM--a group of words that have their own collective meaning. Stripping analogies are strutting onto the business lexicon like never before, reflecting the pornification of our culture. Now everybody wants to make figures like a porn star.
Figaro

O.K,, so one of the senses for "idiom" in my dictionary reads: "an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either grammatically (as 'no, it wasn't me') or in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (as 'Monday week' for 'the Monday a week after next Monday')
My question is, what makes "no, it wasn't me" an idiom?

Dear Audrey,

Your phlegmatic old dictionary holds to a grammar-based definition of an idiom--a grammatically peculiar set of words. While "It wasn't me" is technically incorrect, few people would use the proper "It wasn't I." But Figaro would call your dictionary's example a SOLECISM--plain old stupid language. Just follow the example of Krusty the Clown and say, "I didn't do it."

Figaro prefers his own, far more useful, definition: an IDIOM is a group of words that, when taken together, have their own special meaning.

Catch my drift?

Fig.

Have you described "Merism" as a figure lately?
Jack

I've searched high and low (to coin a merism) for a reason why I haveven't done the MERISM yet. You might say it's the alpha and omega (to coin another) of figures, throwing in the whole kit and caboodle (ahem) of rhetoric. A merism uses several words to describe a whole--either by naming its parts or by listing synonyms. A train conductor uses a merism when he declares the "last and final stop." Lawyers are inordinately fond of merisms, as are the Bible and Figaro. I have every will, desire and intention to write an entry on it someday.

Fig.

No question...Just a THANK YOU for arguing. I learned sooooooo much from your book. Please write another one to piggyback this one so that I am better able to argue with the wit and intellect of you. Thanks again and like keep the wheels spinning..........
Anne

Dear, DEAR Anne,

My publisher thinks I make people like you up. "Annie Sparkleton" is just too good. But here's a question for YOU: what should the next book be about. For instance, which would you rather read: "The Liar Detector" or "The 12 Lost Words"?

The first would offer more than 50 ways to tell whether you can trust someone.

The second would talk about a dozen terms that broke loose from their etymological moorings at a critical time in American history--including "candid," "hypocrite," "pathetic," and, of course, "rhetoric." They serve as markers for a change to an unrhetorical society, and by recovering their lost meanings, we can help restore our discourse.

So what's next, Figarists? Liars, or lost words? Email me directly--figaro@wildblue.net--or fill in the box at the bottom of this page.

Figaro

Figaro, I just read your book, and am facinated with rhetoric. I am trying to read Kenneth Burke's book, do you have any tips for trying to understand what he is saying? Aristotle's work is much easier. Lance

Dear Lance,

I assume you mean "A Rhetoric of Motives." The easiest way to read it is to skip Part I and go straight to Part II, "Traditional Principles of Rhetoric." THEN read Part I, buzzing through the stuff on Milton and paying special attention to the sections on Identification and "Consubstantiality" (yeah, I know).

Burke himself says in the introduction that Part I is "the only difficult part of the book." That's not exactly true--you have to be really committed to follow Burke--but read it in the order I suggest, and you'll find it worth your while. Kenneth Burke was the Einstein of rhetoric. He transformed the ancient art with his brilliant dissection of our species' tribal nature. If only he knew out to follow an intelligible outline.

Fig.

Greetings, Figaro. You have answered my life's question, which brings up a new life's question: May I successfully use the apophasis when I inform all my skeptical smarter-than-me friends that, "I won't say, 'I told you so.'"? Or, is that just playing too dirty? Oh, and good news, the effects have NOT worn off! Hubby had just gone to the bathroom and was/is still enthralled by my word-charms! I shall buy that book to say thanks for both my vindication and my gratification. I die a blissful woman. Indebtedly yours, Virginia

Dear Virginia, "I won't say I told you so" is a classic apophasis, and an especially annoying one. Far better to maneuver the other person into saying, "You called that right." Do it by over-sympathizing--a complaint I explain in that book you promise to buy. Yrs, Figaro

Dear Figaro, Does the apophasis also include "boasting," such as when the Old English saga heroes say they won't mention all the dangers and dragons they've faced and overcome and then go ahead and mention them all in great detail, ad infinitum? Also, what about the example of St.Paul saying to Philemon, "I won't mention how I saved your life"? (The Epistle to Philemon) The first case I believe is for sheer one-upmanship, and the other to gain a favor. So, does apophasis always have to mean mentioning something bad about an opponent? Or can it have a more self-serving than other-bashing motive? Thanks for the laughs, though they've driven my hubby out of bed. Too bad being word-crazy doesn't attract men the way it attracts women--or maybe the narcotic affects just wear off faster for males than for females. After all, he married me. So it must attract initially, but then it seems to repel later . . .
Virginia

Dear Virginia,

Yes indeed: That sneaky not-to-mention figure, the apophasis, is great for polishing your own image as well as tarnishing your opponent's. Both constitute argument by character--getting the audience to like and trust you, and to find your opponent a sneaky jerk.

As for men not being attracted to women with great figures, rhetorically speaking: real men love witty women. Maybe the problem is how you employ your brilliance. Figaro's book shows how to seduce a lover without turning him off--using the techniques of that logo-licious manly man, Aristotle.

Your letter was very clever, by the way. Figaro finds you irresistible.

Fig.

I have a question (shocking place for a question, I know):

Do you know whether Thank You For Arguing is sold in Denmark? I'm impatient to get it and don't really have the money for international shipping right now.

Your New Admirer

LeoTolZap

Dear LTZ,

As far as we can tell, Thank You for Arguing is not yet available in Hamlet's birthplace, which should make every Dane melancholy. We've sold the British and Italian rights--the British translation will be especially challenging--but nothing to the Danes. You might try eBay, though. Maybe some speed-reader in Copenhagen is trying to sell it.

Fig.

Dear Fig,
A fellow in a bar once gave me this supposedly sage advice,

"He who cares the least gets the most"

What would your Greek pals say about that?

Allen

Dear Allen,

My ancient homies would call it a SYNCRISIS (Greek for "comparison"), which compares or contrasts with similar clauses.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

McDonald's, the name of the fast-food restaurant led to the creation of many new McWords with negative connotations:
McJob: a job where little training is required, staff turnover is high, and where workers' activities are tightly regulated.
McChurch: a church characterized by consumerism and commercialism.
Mc Mansion: an ugly large house.
McSlave: one who does a McJob.

Is there a term for the creation of these new words based on a prefix?


Arie Vrolijk.

The McWhatever is a PROTHESIS, a figure that adds a letter or syllabus to the beginning of a word. The result, in this McCase, is a MEIOSIS, the shrinking figure. "Mc" now does what "ette" used to do -- a ranchette is now often called a McRanch.

Personally, Figaro advocates the HAPPY figure, as in Happy Meal. Instead of "Mc," use "Happy." Thus your McMansion becomes a Happy Mansion. Don't like it? Have it your way.

Fig.

Dear Figaro: I'm wondering what it's called when a speaker asks you to put yourself in his or her shoes. The closest I've come is the exuscitatio, but the figure I'm searching for isn't necessarily as emotional. Thanks in advance. Nan.

Dear Nan,

Good question. For one thing, "Put yourself in my shoes" is an IDIOM, an inseparable set of words with its own meaning. The phrase also qualifies as a METONYMY, one of the central figures. It makes something small ("the Crown") stand for something big ("the Queen"). As you pointed out in an email to me, the shoes thing also constitutes a rhetorical strategy involving the speaker's ETHOS, or rhetorical character. And what is that strategy? A kind of ENARGIA. That's the special effects of rhetoric. Enargia makes your audience imagine something as if they're experiencing it themselves.

That's all. Figaro is Greeked out, man.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

It is an oldie. Monica Lewinsky said to Linda Trip in 1998 : ‘If I ever want to have an affair with a married man again, especially if he’s president, please shoot me.’
I studied the manuals with growing confusion and frustration. What is it? DEPRECATIO? EXECRATIO? DEESIS? Or something else? Please help me out.
Yours, Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,

We believe it's a rhetorical device called "the Good Idea."

Fig.

My friend sent this to me - after you solve it, is there a name for
this phenomenon?

BRAIN TEASER...

See if you can figure out what all of the following words have in
common:

Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Voodoo
Assess

Answer:
In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter.... place it
at the end of the word....and then spell the word backwards..... it will
be the same word. Did you figure it out? If you didn't, don't feel
bad....Most people do not.

Warren Randall
Prescott's Press

Dear Randall,
I banana your uneven voodoo. Let's just revive our dresser and then assess. OK? Your puzzle is not a figure of speech, though it might loosely qualify as a riddle.
Yrs,
Figaro

I have been wondering about the phrase "taken the cure" for years.

I've tried to find out the idiomatic meaning for it but .........

Can you help?


Michael


"Cure" originally meant "care," so up through the Middle Ages, to "take cure" meant to show concern. Later, "cure" meant medical treatment, whether it succeeded or not. This meaning is what's behind the IDIOM "taking the cure"--a kind of treatment that usually entailed a spa and salubrious waters.

Kind of makes Figaro thirsty.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Would "uncommonly rare" qualify as a tautology?
Simon Giles

Dear Simon,
That depends on whom you ask, but since you asked Figaro, the answer is no. It's a mere redundancy.

A true tautology has logic chasing its own tail: it uses the conclusion to prove the conclusion. By saying the same thing in different words, though, it fools the guileless. Which you, Mr. Giles, clearly are not.
Fig.

Dear Figaro,

On your 'A Sure-Fire Way ... '- web page you state that a tautology is a 'fallacy of proof by repetition'. I know this fallacy as the 'argumentum ad nauseam'. Also, the example you provide by Wayne Pierre is a fallacy known as 'petitio principii' or 'circulus in probando'.

Cheers!

Stefan


An tautology is different from an argument ad nauseum, because a tautology only repeats once, while the ad nauseum goes on, well, ad nauseum. Secondly, the tautology uses the conclusion as the proof to prove the conclusion. It's similar to the petitio principii, except that the P.P. requires knowledge of the syllogism, which Figaro finds abhorrent.

Fig.