Super Kindergarten Rhetoric!

The latest question from Ask Figaro:

Fig,

General Petraeus…General Betray-us. What think ye of this as a declaration and is it a form of argument?

M Stone

Dear Geode-like One,

“Betray Us” constitutes a figure of speech called paronomasia, a near-pun. It plays on words that sound or mean the same but aren’t identical. The paronomasia is great for labeling an opponent, provided that your opponent is under the age of six. In the context of the most talented general to come along in a decade, the figure — used in a New York Times ad by the group MoveOn.org — comes off as clumsy and, dare we say it, illiberal…. [more]

Update on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 12:21PM by Figaro

In the comments to this posting, Mark asked a question that made Figaro think a little harder about that cruel-play-on-somebody’s-name thing.  I’ll stand by my paronomasia, but you might better call it an ADNOMINATIO.  See the “Ask Figaro” section for details.

 The wise Figarist might ask: Who cares?  What’s interesting to us isn’t the name of these techniques, necessarily, but the techniques themselves.  Figures show us a delightful variety of ways to ruin someone’s self-esteem and make people associate him with an embarrassing or evil attribute.  You can find words that sound like the person’s name, or play off the literal meaning of the term (“Bush” is a fine example), or assign a new, belittling name, or assign an opposite name that only highlights their flaw (calling a bald Stooge “Curly”), or use a descriptive phrase instead of the proper noun (“She Who Must Be Obeyed,” “He Who Must Not Be Named”), and so on and so on.

 It’s a big, beautiful, humiliating figurative world out there.

 Fig.

Comments

[Sam]

So you don't think Elizabeth Edwards' slam of Move On was a cheap shot?

[Figaro]

An easy shot, maybe. Like taking rhetorical candy from a baby. But when it comes to cheap, the Move On ad beats all.

Fig.

[Steve]

"illiberal" is so applicable. Michael Moore, leave the stupid name calling to Rush Limbaugh.

[Howard]

The Administration was attempting to achieve a political goal ("fostering Democracy", in the simplest terms) through military action - invasion, overthrow and upheaval. It was going to be so easy we didn't need to question (or plan for) what would happen in the aftermath.

Well, it hasn't worked out that well. But why blame the military? Where is the State Department ?

Perhaps it's easier (for the Administration) to keep casting the situation (at least rhetorically) as a simply a militarily problem...

[Figaro]

What is the rhetorical term for modifying a person's name? A student of mine used the term "Bill Bellicheat" in response to the head coach of the New England Patriots being punished for cheating. Portmanteau? Eponym? Thanks in advance,
Mark

[Figaro]

Mark, see my reply on "Ask Figaro"!
Fig.

[Mark Matluck]

Figaro, I'm still researching the "Bill Belli-Cheat" device. How about periphrasis? When I tell my Language Arts students about doing this they claim I have no life! Thanks again,

Mark

[Figaro]

Close, but no figurative cigar, Mark. The periphrasis swaps a name for a description or vice versa ("You're no Jack Kennedy," "We don't need Rambos in the Pentagon.") The Bellicheat deal is more of a nickname.

Fig.

[lori]

Can you explain the difference between periphrasis and eponym? Thanks!