Timeline for Is a country's name a metonym - and when? E.g.: "The White House" / "Washington" / ..."The U.S.?"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2017 at 5:19 | vote | accept | RaceYouAnytime | ||
| Apr 15, 2017 at 1:13 | history | edited | etymologynerd.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 212 characters in body
|
| Apr 14, 2017 at 18:19 | comment | added | RaceYouAnytime | @Xanne this reputable source seems to indicate that "Vietnam" in place of "Vietnam war" is a metonym. I've found it harder to find a reputable source that discusses country names as metonyms for various behaviors of the country as in the refugee examples above. books.google.com/… | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 17:31 | comment | added | Xanne | I'm still unclear about whether something like "Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam" is a metronym--whether "Vietnam" standing for the war is a metronym. And I think the answer should be changed to reflect a better example for the United States, e.g., "the United States will accept refugees." How about "We'll always have Paris." Paris here is an event--not a shorthand for a government or even a place. | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 15:18 | comment | added | RaceYouAnytime | @Xanne and etymologynerd, excellent points all around. So where is the boundary between literal and figurative use? I added an edit to my question with a bonus question. Do you guys have thoughts on that? "A refugee lives in the US," -- literal. "A refugee went to the US." -- literal. "The US took in a refugee" -- metonym or literal? "The US sent back a refugee" -- metonym? | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 14:29 | comment | added | etymologynerd.com | Good point; the media, however, does not do that. | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 3:30 | comment | added | Xanne | It may be worth noting that documents of the U.S. State Department are careful to note the difference between a country and its government, e.g., the GOM (government of Mexico), not just "Mexico." | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 3:17 | comment | added | Tonepoet | Actually The U.S. could hypothetically represent the whole population of the U.S., or at least the whole elligable voting population. That's not just a small part representing the whole, but the majority or whole representing the whole (a nation is nothing without its people), which is not to say that is strictly requisite for a metonym anyway. | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 2:57 | comment | added | Xanne | I think "The United States will be delivering the new product" is a poor example (and an unreliable source--"yourdictionary"). It's not clear who's delivering. A better example could be found--e.g., "The United States will be sending troops . . ." | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 2:47 | comment | added | Xanne | Then "Vietnam" to mean the Vietnam War--as in "Syria could be another Vietnam"--is a metonym? | |
| Apr 14, 2017 at 1:26 | history | answered | etymologynerd.com | CC BY-SA 3.0 |