In association with the question on Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Senator Rand Paul in the Time Magazine article “2013 Time 100” that I posted earlier today, I have an additional question about the expression “He is a voice of reason awakening the public” in her remark:
“He is a voice of reason awakening the public to what must be done to restore our prosperity and preserve the blessings of liberty for future generations. His brand of libertarian-leaning conservatism attracts young voters, and recently he inspired the nation with his Capraesque filibuster demanding basic answers about our use of drones.”
I felt somewhat uneasy with the expression, “he is a voice,” because you as an animated being can have a voice, but you cannot be a voice which is an abstract, unanimated ‘object.’
I think there are many similar (possibly metaphoric) expressions like “he is a voice of reason / a mirror of conscience / a walking encyclopedia” that are current. But is the [animated being = unanimated object] equation grammatically right as well as logically congruent?
If so, how different is “he is a voice of reason awakening the public” from “he has a voice of reason awakening the public”?