Ask Figaro
Got a question about rhetoric, figures, Figaro, Figaro's book,the nature of the universe, or just want to lavish praise?
Write in the form at the bottom of this page.
Dear Figaro,
Please tell me where "different kettle of fish" comes from.
Jarrad
Dear Jarrad,
Sigh. Mucking out the origins of idioms is not Figaro's bag, baby (to coin an idiom).
But this one is interesting. A "kettle of fish" once meant a fancy riverside picnic (the original river was the Tweed, in Britain) where the jolly al frescans tossed live salmon into boiling pots of water.
"Different kettle of fish" is an adaptation of "fine kettle of fish" or "rare kettle of fish." These expressions are an ironic way of saying, "This is no picnic."
Put THAT in your pot and boil it.
Fig.
Please tell me where "different kettle of fish" comes from.
Jarrad
Dear Jarrad,
Sigh. Mucking out the origins of idioms is not Figaro's bag, baby (to coin an idiom).
But this one is interesting. A "kettle of fish" once meant a fancy riverside picnic (the original river was the Tweed, in Britain) where the jolly al frescans tossed live salmon into boiling pots of water.
"Different kettle of fish" is an adaptation of "fine kettle of fish" or "rare kettle of fish." These expressions are an ironic way of saying, "This is no picnic."
Put THAT in your pot and boil it.
Fig.
February 17, 2007 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Which figure of speech is "snarling verbal food fight" in the following sentence:
"The point is that the transformation of cable television news into a snarling verbal food fight with a scant informational component happened because the people running it decided to let the numbers run them."
How Smith's death hit Page 1
Tim Rutten
Regarding Media
LATimes.com
February 10, 2007
Thanks,
Martha
Dear Martha,
The writer uses two figures, actually. Turning TV into a "snarling verbal food fight" constitutes a METAPHOR--a mixed one if you want to be picky, since fights can't snarl, but Figaro likes the image.
Here's the second figure: "the people running it decided to let the numbers run them." We declare that a CHIASMUS, the criss-cross figure named after the Greek X. The chiasmus (kee-AZ-muss) reverses parallel ideas, words, or grammatical structure. It's Figaro's very favorite figure, because it sounds great, and it's capable of flipping an opponent's argument like a pancake.
Mmmm, pancakes. Figures make Figaro hungry.
Fig.
Which figure of speech is "snarling verbal food fight" in the following sentence:
"The point is that the transformation of cable television news into a snarling verbal food fight with a scant informational component happened because the people running it decided to let the numbers run them."
How Smith's death hit Page 1
Tim Rutten
Regarding Media
LATimes.com
February 10, 2007
Thanks,
Martha
Dear Martha,
The writer uses two figures, actually. Turning TV into a "snarling verbal food fight" constitutes a METAPHOR--a mixed one if you want to be picky, since fights can't snarl, but Figaro likes the image.
Here's the second figure: "the people running it decided to let the numbers run them." We declare that a CHIASMUS, the criss-cross figure named after the Greek X. The chiasmus (kee-AZ-muss) reverses parallel ideas, words, or grammatical structure. It's Figaro's very favorite figure, because it sounds great, and it's capable of flipping an opponent's argument like a pancake.
Mmmm, pancakes. Figures make Figaro hungry.
Fig.
February 10, 2007 |
Martha V.
Martha V.
Dear Figaro,
Italy's former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was forced by his wife to make a public apology to her after his suggestive remarks to two women made its way onto the front page of La Repubblica, a national newspaper, january 31, 2007.
After a TV award ceremony Mr. Berlusconi was chatting to the dancer Aida Yespica, a former Miss Amazonia. "I'd go with you anywhere," The former prime minister's eye then settled on Mara Carfagna, a onetime Miss Smiles and Songs . The politician declared to guests: "Take a look at her! I'd marry her if I weren't married already."
In his apology Berlusconi used the following arguments: "My days are incredible, you know: work, politics, troubles, moving around, public exams that never end, a life under constant pressure". This combined with his "playful,self-ironic and sometimes irreverent personality," led to his behavior that was ‘a bit irresponsible'.
Figaro, Is there a term for the excuses of Mr. Berlusconi?
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Indeed there is, and it may surprise you: Berlusconi is using an "ethical" argument--not because the randy ex-P.M. is all that moral, but because he's employing his ETHOS, or public character, as an excuse. "I'm a busy guy, and besides, that's just the way I am."
You can also call Berlusconi's non-apology an argument of QUALITY. In any rhetorical defense, you want to rely on the facts if you can. If they don't favor you (and they certainly don't favor Mr. B.), then fall back on defining the terms ("that depends on your definition of what 'is' is"). If that won't work, then fall back further onto the "quality" argument: yeah, I did it, exactly the way you said I did, but it wasn't such a big deal." That's the argument Berlusconi is forced to use.
Those descending strategies, for what it's worth, are collectively called "status theory." Figaro calls it STANCE, since that falls closer to what its ancient inventors intended: taking a stance like wrestlers at the beginning of a match.
There's one fallback argument below Mr. B.'s no-big-deal defense: relevance. In law, it means the court has no jurisdiction. In the public sphere, it means "None of your business."
Fig.
Italy's former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was forced by his wife to make a public apology to her after his suggestive remarks to two women made its way onto the front page of La Repubblica, a national newspaper, january 31, 2007.
After a TV award ceremony Mr. Berlusconi was chatting to the dancer Aida Yespica, a former Miss Amazonia. "I'd go with you anywhere," The former prime minister's eye then settled on Mara Carfagna, a onetime Miss Smiles and Songs . The politician declared to guests: "Take a look at her! I'd marry her if I weren't married already."
In his apology Berlusconi used the following arguments: "My days are incredible, you know: work, politics, troubles, moving around, public exams that never end, a life under constant pressure". This combined with his "playful,self-ironic and sometimes irreverent personality," led to his behavior that was ‘a bit irresponsible'.
Figaro, Is there a term for the excuses of Mr. Berlusconi?
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Indeed there is, and it may surprise you: Berlusconi is using an "ethical" argument--not because the randy ex-P.M. is all that moral, but because he's employing his ETHOS, or public character, as an excuse. "I'm a busy guy, and besides, that's just the way I am."
You can also call Berlusconi's non-apology an argument of QUALITY. In any rhetorical defense, you want to rely on the facts if you can. If they don't favor you (and they certainly don't favor Mr. B.), then fall back on defining the terms ("that depends on your definition of what 'is' is"). If that won't work, then fall back further onto the "quality" argument: yeah, I did it, exactly the way you said I did, but it wasn't such a big deal." That's the argument Berlusconi is forced to use.
Those descending strategies, for what it's worth, are collectively called "status theory." Figaro calls it STANCE, since that falls closer to what its ancient inventors intended: taking a stance like wrestlers at the beginning of a match.
There's one fallback argument below Mr. B.'s no-big-deal defense: relevance. In law, it means the court has no jurisdiction. In the public sphere, it means "None of your business."
Fig.
February 10, 2007 |
a. vrolijk
a. vrolijk
Hey, typo on your page?
"Nothing wrong with extolling heroes’ virtues, but what do they have to do Iraq, health care, or climate change?"
Maybe not?
--Orin
Dear Orin,
We tried hard to pretend we did that on purpose, but couldn't think of a way. Thanks for pointing it out.
Fig.
"Nothing wrong with extolling heroes’ virtues, but what do they have to do Iraq, health care, or climate change?"
Maybe not?
--Orin
Dear Orin,
We tried hard to pretend we did that on purpose, but couldn't think of a way. Thanks for pointing it out.
Fig.
February 4, 2007 |
orin
orin
Dear Figaro,
Last week nearly a war broke out between Great Britain and India. The possible casus belli was the treatment of an Indian superstar from Bollywood, Shilpa Shetty, in a Big Brother Program on Channel 4. Shilpa was confronted with a litany of abuse from the other contestants. They talked not about Miss Shilpa but about ‘the Paki,’ (Pakistani) or ‘the Indian’. A nickname was ‘Papadum’. Papadum is an Indian treat, a thin wafer flavored by chili and pepper. Words like ‘cunt’, ‘fuckawhiler’ belonged to the daily repertoire of the housemates of Miss Shilpa.
Blair said in the Commons he condemned the racism and xenophobia in the program.
‘Paki,’‘Indian’, ‘Papadum’,‘cunt’, ‘fuckawhiler’; what in the detached and objective view of Figaro is going on in Britain?
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Sheer, raw tribalism, Arie. It's a more naked form of what's dominating American discourse. Aristotle named three kinds of rhetoric: forensic, the language of crime and punishment; "demonstrative" rhetoric, which Figaro calls tribal language; and deliberative rhetoric, the language of politics and choices. Demonstrative rhetoric is great for both sermons and hate speech; and you're not seeing a sermon in the Brits' Big Brother.
Fig.
Last week nearly a war broke out between Great Britain and India. The possible casus belli was the treatment of an Indian superstar from Bollywood, Shilpa Shetty, in a Big Brother Program on Channel 4. Shilpa was confronted with a litany of abuse from the other contestants. They talked not about Miss Shilpa but about ‘the Paki,’ (Pakistani) or ‘the Indian’. A nickname was ‘Papadum’. Papadum is an Indian treat, a thin wafer flavored by chili and pepper. Words like ‘cunt’, ‘fuckawhiler’ belonged to the daily repertoire of the housemates of Miss Shilpa.
Blair said in the Commons he condemned the racism and xenophobia in the program.
‘Paki,’‘Indian’, ‘Papadum’,‘cunt’, ‘fuckawhiler’; what in the detached and objective view of Figaro is going on in Britain?
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Sheer, raw tribalism, Arie. It's a more naked form of what's dominating American discourse. Aristotle named three kinds of rhetoric: forensic, the language of crime and punishment; "demonstrative" rhetoric, which Figaro calls tribal language; and deliberative rhetoric, the language of politics and choices. Demonstrative rhetoric is great for both sermons and hate speech; and you're not seeing a sermon in the Brits' Big Brother.
Fig.
January 28, 2007 |
a. vrolijk
a. vrolijk
Dear Figaro,
As usual the president praised some new heroes in his State of the Union Address.
BUSH: ‘Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train.
With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads.
He insists he's not a hero. He says: "We've got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We have got to show each other some love."
There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.’
What is the technical term for this digression?
Thank you,
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
While there are figures for interruptions within a sentence (APPOSITIO, PAREMBOLE), we don't know of one that suits this sort of digression--other than "digression."
That may be because there is little art to this presidential fad of naming heroes during State of the Union addresses, one that Reagan started and succeeding presidents have unvariably followed. Increasingly, occupants of the White House avoid deliberative rhetoric--the language of politics and of decision-making--in favor of demonstrative rhetoric, which speaks of values and reinforces tribal identity. The heroes stand for what is best in America. (Though how the creator of those ridiculous Baby Einstein videos is remotely heroic is beyond Figaro's ken.) Nothing wrong with extolling their virtues, but what do they have to do Iraq, health care, or climate change?
Which of course, is exactly the point. Heroes allow the president to bask in their virtue, while distracting us from the issues at hand.
Yrs,
Figaro
As usual the president praised some new heroes in his State of the Union Address.
BUSH: ‘Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train.
With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads.
He insists he's not a hero. He says: "We've got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We have got to show each other some love."
There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.’
What is the technical term for this digression?
Thank you,
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
While there are figures for interruptions within a sentence (APPOSITIO, PAREMBOLE), we don't know of one that suits this sort of digression--other than "digression."
That may be because there is little art to this presidential fad of naming heroes during State of the Union addresses, one that Reagan started and succeeding presidents have unvariably followed. Increasingly, occupants of the White House avoid deliberative rhetoric--the language of politics and of decision-making--in favor of demonstrative rhetoric, which speaks of values and reinforces tribal identity. The heroes stand for what is best in America. (Though how the creator of those ridiculous Baby Einstein videos is remotely heroic is beyond Figaro's ken.) Nothing wrong with extolling their virtues, but what do they have to do Iraq, health care, or climate change?
Which of course, is exactly the point. Heroes allow the president to bask in their virtue, while distracting us from the issues at hand.
Yrs,
Figaro
January 25, 2007 |
a, vrolijk
a, vrolijk
Dear Figaro,
I ran into an acquaintance I hadn't seen in a few weeks and asked him how he enjoyed the holidays. He got red in the face and growled, "You mean CHRISTMAS? All this politically correct crap is ruining this country."
Leaving aside that "the holidays" originally meant "holy days," does "political correctness" represent some figure of speech?
Kairotica
Dear 'Rotica,
These days, people get easily offended by how easily offended people get these days. This amuses Figaro greatly.
Your choleric acquaintance did indeed use a figure. "Politically correct" constitutes a PARADOX -- a pair of conflicting truths. (The term comes from the Greek, meaning "against common belief or opinion.") The words "political" and "correct" are like snake oil and water. To enforce a “correct” way of thinking smacks of George Orwell and Stalin.
Of course, people who insist on "Christmas" instead of "holidays" are themselves enforcing a correct way of political thinking. Which makes the Christmasists paragons of political correctness.
Figaro, on the other hand, hopes that everyone had a Merry Holiday.
Yrs,
Fig.
I ran into an acquaintance I hadn't seen in a few weeks and asked him how he enjoyed the holidays. He got red in the face and growled, "You mean CHRISTMAS? All this politically correct crap is ruining this country."
Leaving aside that "the holidays" originally meant "holy days," does "political correctness" represent some figure of speech?
Kairotica
Dear 'Rotica,
These days, people get easily offended by how easily offended people get these days. This amuses Figaro greatly.
Your choleric acquaintance did indeed use a figure. "Politically correct" constitutes a PARADOX -- a pair of conflicting truths. (The term comes from the Greek, meaning "against common belief or opinion.") The words "political" and "correct" are like snake oil and water. To enforce a “correct” way of thinking smacks of George Orwell and Stalin.
Of course, people who insist on "Christmas" instead of "holidays" are themselves enforcing a correct way of political thinking. Which makes the Christmasists paragons of political correctness.
Figaro, on the other hand, hopes that everyone had a Merry Holiday.
Yrs,
Fig.
January 14, 2007 |
Kairotica
Kairotica
"We have the terrorists on the run, and we are keeping them on the run." - Is this an example of tautology?
"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." Is this an example of hyberbole?
Thanks!
ANSWER:
Alas, Tatjana,
Our running terrorists do not a tautology make. People often mistake a mere repetition for a tautology; but to qualify as this most insidious of fallacies, a tautology uses repetition to support itself logically: "You should trust me because I'm a trustworthy guy."
You do score a point with evil, however. That quote is indeed a hyperbole. It's also an ANTISTREPHON, a judo-like figure of thought in which you use your opponent's argument to your own advantage.
Yrs,
Fig.
"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." Is this an example of hyberbole?
Thanks!
ANSWER:
Alas, Tatjana,
Our running terrorists do not a tautology make. People often mistake a mere repetition for a tautology; but to qualify as this most insidious of fallacies, a tautology uses repetition to support itself logically: "You should trust me because I'm a trustworthy guy."
You do score a point with evil, however. That quote is indeed a hyperbole. It's also an ANTISTREPHON, a judo-like figure of thought in which you use your opponent's argument to your own advantage.
Yrs,
Fig.
January 10, 2007 |
Tatjana
Tatjana
Ave, Figaro or ciao or whatever!
Chanced again upon your wonderful site or blog or whatever one calls it. (Ok, not everybody will agree with me on this attributive, but I do.)
Anyway, in a Q&A thing from September 18th last you came up with the term "prolepsis". Undoubtedly not wrong, but ain't it about the same as good-ol'-fashioned "anachronism"? Like when (who was it again?) Katherine Hepburn mentions America to Richard Burton in the Hollywoodian flick The Lion in Winter (set somewhere around A.D. 1190-99). Prolepsis? Or was that simply collapsis mentis hollywoodiensis?
Douglas Rakestraw
Dear Douglas,
The difference between a prolepsis and an anachronism reveals the neat gap between a figure of speech and a figure of thought. The PROLEPSIS changes the usual grammar or syntax ("I'll be a dead man" becomes "I'm a dead man."). The ANACHRONISM constitutes a form of thinking--bad thinking at times. In which case, we can label it a SOLECISM.
And the obnoxious display of erudite speech is called JARGONISM, of which Figaro is fetishistically guilty.
Yrs,
Fig.
Chanced again upon your wonderful site or blog or whatever one calls it. (Ok, not everybody will agree with me on this attributive, but I do.)
Anyway, in a Q&A thing from September 18th last you came up with the term "prolepsis". Undoubtedly not wrong, but ain't it about the same as good-ol'-fashioned "anachronism"? Like when (who was it again?) Katherine Hepburn mentions America to Richard Burton in the Hollywoodian flick The Lion in Winter (set somewhere around A.D. 1190-99). Prolepsis? Or was that simply collapsis mentis hollywoodiensis?
Douglas Rakestraw
Dear Douglas,
The difference between a prolepsis and an anachronism reveals the neat gap between a figure of speech and a figure of thought. The PROLEPSIS changes the usual grammar or syntax ("I'll be a dead man" becomes "I'm a dead man."). The ANACHRONISM constitutes a form of thinking--bad thinking at times. In which case, we can label it a SOLECISM.
And the obnoxious display of erudite speech is called JARGONISM, of which Figaro is fetishistically guilty.
Yrs,
Fig.
January 1, 2007 |
Douglas Rakestraw
Douglas Rakestraw
Dear Figaro,
Thank you for your reply.
You were disappointed to find out that Churchill spoke motherese?
“It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war’. I did some digging. According to the The Washington Post in its June 27 issue, 1954 p. 1, Churchill said “better to talk jaw to jaw than have war,” and The Star, Washington, D.C., p. 1, reported a slight variation, “It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war.”The cited ‘jaw-jaw’ version by Macshane is most likely a later paraphrase by a journalist.
By the way the French have a term for infantile repetition: redoublement hypocoristique.
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
We shall redoubler our efforts.
Yrs,
Fig.
Thank you for your reply.
You were disappointed to find out that Churchill spoke motherese?
“It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war’. I did some digging. According to the The Washington Post in its June 27 issue, 1954 p. 1, Churchill said “better to talk jaw to jaw than have war,” and The Star, Washington, D.C., p. 1, reported a slight variation, “It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war.”The cited ‘jaw-jaw’ version by Macshane is most likely a later paraphrase by a journalist.
By the way the French have a term for infantile repetition: redoublement hypocoristique.
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
We shall redoubler our efforts.
Yrs,
Fig.
December 18, 2006 |
Arie Vrolijk
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Figaro,
Can you analyse the following sentence?
‘James Baker’s recommendation of opening talks with Iran and Syria is a victory for the realists. Jaw-jaw, to use Churchills’s formulation, is now to replace the failed Bush doctrine of war-war.’
Macshane, a Labour M.P., in Newsweek 18 december 2006.
‘Jaw-jaw’ and ‘war-war’? What technique does Macshane use?
Please help me.
Yours
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
Let's go right to the source, Churchill's original quote: "To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war." That's an ISOCOLON (Greek for "equal member") to start with--a figure of paralellism that balances clauses of equal length and rhythm. The "jaw-jaw" "war-war" thing is an EPIZEUXIS ("yoke together), which repeats a word in the same phrase without any other words between.
Figaro would also call the quote an infantalism. He finds it the most annoying of all Churchilliana.
Yrs,
Fig.
Can you analyse the following sentence?
‘James Baker’s recommendation of opening talks with Iran and Syria is a victory for the realists. Jaw-jaw, to use Churchills’s formulation, is now to replace the failed Bush doctrine of war-war.’
Macshane, a Labour M.P., in Newsweek 18 december 2006.
‘Jaw-jaw’ and ‘war-war’? What technique does Macshane use?
Please help me.
Yours
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
Let's go right to the source, Churchill's original quote: "To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war." That's an ISOCOLON (Greek for "equal member") to start with--a figure of paralellism that balances clauses of equal length and rhythm. The "jaw-jaw" "war-war" thing is an EPIZEUXIS ("yoke together), which repeats a word in the same phrase without any other words between.
Figaro would also call the quote an infantalism. He finds it the most annoying of all Churchilliana.
Yrs,
Fig.
December 13, 2006 |
Arie Vrolijk
Arie Vrolijk
As an expression of thanks for the existence of this site, it might not be too inappropriate, therefore, to nominate the "Snappy-Answer Guy" himself for Rhetor of the Year. My bet is that Figaro would win by a landslide; harder to predict is "Figure of the Year" (corny proposal as that may be, but what the hell...)
Dear Parry,
We are suckers for flattery, and your missive will leave us preening for at least a week. The problem is, we were thinking of nominating Barack Obama, and we're afraid we might lose a Figaro-Obama smackdown.
Fig.
Dear Parry,
We are suckers for flattery, and your missive will leave us preening for at least a week. The problem is, we were thinking of nominating Barack Obama, and we're afraid we might lose a Figaro-Obama smackdown.
Fig.
December 8, 2006 |
Permanent Parabasis
Permanent Parabasis
Dear Figaro,
The year 2006 is running to it’s end. During this year Figaro has been reading and analysing many speeches, sermons, texts. I am wondering;
What text blew his mind and left his jaw open?
When did he mutter to himself: ‘My God, this is damned good.’
Who was to his opinion the best rhetor?
Figaro has already expressed his appreciation for Rumsfeld (Our all-Time Favorite Defense Secretary) so he can skip the former Secretary.
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Hmmm, good question, Arie. Let me ponder. And anyone who wants to nominate Rhetor of the Year is welcome.
Figaro
The year 2006 is running to it’s end. During this year Figaro has been reading and analysing many speeches, sermons, texts. I am wondering;
What text blew his mind and left his jaw open?
When did he mutter to himself: ‘My God, this is damned good.’
Who was to his opinion the best rhetor?
Figaro has already expressed his appreciation for Rumsfeld (Our all-Time Favorite Defense Secretary) so he can skip the former Secretary.
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
Hmmm, good question, Arie. Let me ponder. And anyone who wants to nominate Rhetor of the Year is welcome.
Figaro
December 5, 2006 |
Arie Vrolijk
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Figaro,
You solved many rhetorical puzzles. It encourages me to present the following problem.
Physicians often use or abuse the words ‘we’ and’ us’ and ‘our’.
Ex.:
The physician looked at the weight scale, sighed and said to the fat man: ‘It seems that we were not able to reach our weight reduction targets completely.
Is there a general term for this phenomenon?
Many thanks
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
There is no rhetorical term that Figaro can name, but the device is central to the art: it has to do with the language of identity. By using the first person plural instead of the second person, the physician (or, more commonly, nurse) tries to remove blame and share responsibility. It's a form of "demonstrative" (epideictic) rhetoric.
Yrs,
Figaro
You solved many rhetorical puzzles. It encourages me to present the following problem.
Physicians often use or abuse the words ‘we’ and’ us’ and ‘our’.
Ex.:
The physician looked at the weight scale, sighed and said to the fat man: ‘It seems that we were not able to reach our weight reduction targets completely.
Is there a general term for this phenomenon?
Many thanks
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Arie,
There is no rhetorical term that Figaro can name, but the device is central to the art: it has to do with the language of identity. By using the first person plural instead of the second person, the physician (or, more commonly, nurse) tries to remove blame and share responsibility. It's a form of "demonstrative" (epideictic) rhetoric.
Yrs,
Figaro
November 28, 2006 |
Arie Vrolijk
Arie Vrolijk
Dear Figaro,
In your latest delightful entry, you write: 'And liberal bloggers think they deserve more propers.' I take it that you've elided 'recognition' or something to that effect: what figure is this, please?
Luke
Dear Luke,
It's a colloquialism--and an ANTHIMERIA, the "verbing figure," which changes one part of speech into another. "Propers" has been shortened to "props" among younger speakers, but Figaro is slow in catching on.
Figaro
In your latest delightful entry, you write: 'And liberal bloggers think they deserve more propers.' I take it that you've elided 'recognition' or something to that effect: what figure is this, please?
Luke
Dear Luke,
It's a colloquialism--and an ANTHIMERIA, the "verbing figure," which changes one part of speech into another. "Propers" has been shortened to "props" among younger speakers, but Figaro is slow in catching on.
Figaro
November 19, 2006 |
Luke Fitzgerald
Luke Fitzgerald
Great stuff. Can I use some of your articles on the site www.anorak.co.uk?
Best wishes
Paul
You bet. Everyone is welcome to use our stuff (except for the book excerpts, which are copyrighted separately). Just provide a link to this site.
Yrs,
Figaro
Best wishes
Paul
You bet. Everyone is welcome to use our stuff (except for the book excerpts, which are copyrighted separately). Just provide a link to this site.
Yrs,
Figaro
November 15, 2006 |
Paul Sorene
Paul Sorene
Figaro...by happy coincidence I stumbled on your website.
I run a high school writing center, where I read and edit student's papers and listen to them talk among themselves all day. As a result I have a craving for knowledge on how our language evolved and how teenage language came to be. I'm wishing someone would have invented a "like" alarm which would ring loudly each time this word is used. However, it might ring so often that some might mistake it for the fire alarm.
Thanks...Dave Sprehe
Dear Dave,
This reply may alarm you, I'm afraid. Figaro is something of a fan--a cautious, codicil-laden fan--of the rhetorical "like." He even praises it in his book: http://www.figarospeech.com/in-praise-of-like/.
We're, like, really sorry. NOT.
Yrs,
Figaro
I run a high school writing center, where I read and edit student's papers and listen to them talk among themselves all day. As a result I have a craving for knowledge on how our language evolved and how teenage language came to be. I'm wishing someone would have invented a "like" alarm which would ring loudly each time this word is used. However, it might ring so often that some might mistake it for the fire alarm.
Thanks...Dave Sprehe
Dear Dave,
This reply may alarm you, I'm afraid. Figaro is something of a fan--a cautious, codicil-laden fan--of the rhetorical "like." He even praises it in his book: http://www.figarospeech.com/in-praise-of-like/.
We're, like, really sorry. NOT.
Yrs,
Figaro
November 13, 2006 |
David Sprehe
David Sprehe
Hail, o ye Figaroans!
By some chance touch-down of my rock-skipping mind across some irretraceable waterway of the www I chanced upon your site.
Love it!
What a super-mix of humor,education, politics, philosophy, literature, language history, psychology and other ingredients, both delicious and nutricious!
My heartfelt compliments!
Douglas Rakestraw
Dear DR,
Why, thank you. Can a rock touch down on water, or are you relying overmuch on Figaro's ability to maintain surface tension?
Catechresically yours,
Fig.
By some chance touch-down of my rock-skipping mind across some irretraceable waterway of the www I chanced upon your site.
Love it!
What a super-mix of humor,education, politics, philosophy, literature, language history, psychology and other ingredients, both delicious and nutricious!
My heartfelt compliments!
Douglas Rakestraw
Dear DR,
Why, thank you. Can a rock touch down on water, or are you relying overmuch on Figaro's ability to maintain surface tension?
Catechresically yours,
Fig.
November 13, 2006 |
Douglas Rakestraw
Douglas Rakestraw
I'm setting out on an acedemic project on the uses of cross-national comparison in public policy arguments. Specifically I'm concerned with how advocates use or don't use comparisons to convince people of the salience of problems (eg: we should worry about inequality here because we're so much more unequal than Sweden) and of the relevance of solutions (eg: we should ban guns to reduce the murder rate 'cos it once worked in Britain). Are there figures of speech embodied in these forms of argument? Or am I way off base? I was hoping to sound clever when constructing my typology of comparative argument by using all these neat-sounding terms of rhetoric.
Great site by the way.
Alistair Howard
Dear Alistair,
You're way ON base, dude. Aristotle listed listed PATRIOTISM and EMULATION among the most persuasive emotions.
Patriotism, a kind of rhetorical group loyalty, doesn’t have to be all about country. You can be patriotic for a high school, a British soccer team, or -- rarely these days -- a company. Do not confuse it with idealism; that's not an emotion. Soldiers have died for democracy and freedom, indeed, but their patriotism burns for a country, not an idea -- the stars and bars, not the Constitution. An effective argument against flag-burning is bound to be emotional, because it's all about zeal for country. An argument for allowing flag-burning must use Logos more than Pathos, because it emphasizes ideals more than patriotism.
Where patriotism often has a negative inspiration -- you get patriotic when your group is under threat -- emulation works the opposite way. It's hard for us to see emulation as an emotion; the ancients were much bigger on imitation than we were. But emulation makes sense in modern times when we see it as an emotional response to a role model. A kid sees "The Three Stooges” on cable and gives his younger brother a noogie: that's emulation. It also comes out of our atavistic need to belong.
With each emotion, you're talking about IDENTIFICATION, with or against a rival or comparative group. This is the junction between appeals by emotion and by character.
It's interesting that you cite positive examples of Old Europe. Some of the most persuasive arguments in current American politics use those effete foreigners over there in a negative sense; A, because they talk funny, and B, because they don't have the decency to like real football.
Yrs,
Figaro
Great site by the way.
Alistair Howard
Dear Alistair,
You're way ON base, dude. Aristotle listed listed PATRIOTISM and EMULATION among the most persuasive emotions.
Patriotism, a kind of rhetorical group loyalty, doesn’t have to be all about country. You can be patriotic for a high school, a British soccer team, or -- rarely these days -- a company. Do not confuse it with idealism; that's not an emotion. Soldiers have died for democracy and freedom, indeed, but their patriotism burns for a country, not an idea -- the stars and bars, not the Constitution. An effective argument against flag-burning is bound to be emotional, because it's all about zeal for country. An argument for allowing flag-burning must use Logos more than Pathos, because it emphasizes ideals more than patriotism.
Where patriotism often has a negative inspiration -- you get patriotic when your group is under threat -- emulation works the opposite way. It's hard for us to see emulation as an emotion; the ancients were much bigger on imitation than we were. But emulation makes sense in modern times when we see it as an emotional response to a role model. A kid sees "The Three Stooges” on cable and gives his younger brother a noogie: that's emulation. It also comes out of our atavistic need to belong.
With each emotion, you're talking about IDENTIFICATION, with or against a rival or comparative group. This is the junction between appeals by emotion and by character.
It's interesting that you cite positive examples of Old Europe. Some of the most persuasive arguments in current American politics use those effete foreigners over there in a negative sense; A, because they talk funny, and B, because they don't have the decency to like real football.
Yrs,
Figaro
November 13, 2006 |
Alistair Howard
Alistair Howard
A young man in Davenport said to senator McCain who was campaigning for Conservatives in Iowa: "You ditched Iowa in 2000. Why should we support you?"
The candidate responded, to peals of laughter: "You know, we should never let these young punks in. No respect. You remind me of my own kids." Washinton Post, February 19, 2007.
Figaro, what is the name of the technique used by McCain? Please give your comment.
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk
It's a classic, clumsy ad hominem attack, a means of dodging the question. Mr. McC. has a temper, which comes out even when he's trying to be funny.
Fig.