12/28 Why do phrases like "the City of Berkeley" and "the State of
California" refer to the government bodies rather than the city/state
as a whole? Does it relate to something in our Constitution? Thanks.
\_ It's synecdoche. --pld
\_ They're notional places, but when someone says that they do
something, or that something is done to them, the default
referent is the government. "The State imprisoned..." "...sued
the State" "City assessed taxes..." etc. but "I live in the City
of Berkeley", "the fastest computer in the whole State of
California".
\_ I always thought that when you say state or city then that
means the state or city. But when you say State, or City
then it becomes the government. E.g. "I live in the city of
Berkeley, and the state of California." Besides, it's just
another way for the government to screw with your heads.
\_ Putting it another way: how else would you say you got fucked over
by a particular government entity? It's just easiest to refer to
the entity as a person. Like so, "Berkeley fucked me for selling
\_ And so in this country now, Corporations (legalized organized
crime) have the rights of a person where many people still
do not.
crack to kids last week." And, "The United States bombed those
fuckers again". Or, "The State of California has a primary so
late that their primary votes are meaningless".
\_ So what does it mean when we say "People vs. Larry Flynt"
\_ Since in theory, the government is of/by/for the people,
when the gov. takes action, We The People are taking
that action. It happens in all of our names. So, the
Government = The People and vice versa. We're here to
help you.
\_ No it's not. It is *metonymy*.
\_ These two terms are often interchangeable. Metonymy
is just a slightly more general description.
\_ The current state government makes me feel all icky.
Odds are that if the original poster knew what synedoche
Where can I get a synecdouche?
\_ Mass qtys of motd crap can be replaced by one word.
\_ But only if pld comes up with it. -John
\_ You mean you deleted clear English explanations and left
the motd with a single word to look up in a dictionary?
Odds are that if the original poster knew what synecdoche
meant they wouldn't have asked on the motd, you moron.
\_ Better living through a college-level vocabulary!
\_ kwyjibo - it's a big dumb bald ape, kwyjibo.
\_ Better living through clear communications.
If a fourth grader can't understand your
writing then you're over writing.
\_ "Know your audience," you mean. (Wouldn't
it make sense to assume a CSUA audience
would have a better vocabulary than your
average group of 4th graders? Or is the
common denominator really that bad?)
\_ No. It wouldn't make sense. When I
said 4th grade, I meant it.
\_ And yet you refuse to substantiate it.
\_ Yeah, so what? Your point? Have
you put me in my place or
something with that comment? I
suggest Prozac.
I didn't intend for that to be a putting-in-place sort _/
of comment, it just came out all wrong. I just wondered
why you chose to make such a strong statement, and what
evidence you might have for it. I know the schools are
bad, but I hadn't dreamed they were as bad as that
statement would imply, if I understand you correctly.
\_ Oh. Well excuse my nasty reply then. In any case, yes, even
Berkeley, the shining gem of the UC system has deteriorated to the
extent that IMHO it is no longer the place of higher learning and
thought it once was. Mostly, it's "gimme my degree, I'm gone".
For those about to contradict me with "Well, I'm not!", please note
the word "mostly". You can look it up. ;-)
\_ Delete it all you want, twit.
It won't change the fact that if
a college student won't or can't
acquire a decent command of
English vocabulary, he probably
isn't worth talking to. -John
I deleted nothing. I always judge people _/
by their vocabulary. Because as we know, a big
vocabulary means you're a worthwhile person and
a lesser vocabulary means you're a worthless
scumbag. I base all my friendships on
vocabulary size. John, I love you but you're
not making sense.
\_ To clarify: I was talking about willing-
ness to learn, i.e. use a dictionary,
when someone uses a word you don't know.
I had no idea what "synecdoche" meant, so
I looked it up. Maybe that is too much
to expect from university students. -John
\_ Had someone not deleted the rest of the
motd, you would not have needed to look
it up. Hence my original gripe about
scrubbing the simple English description
that was posted.
So how do you account for the success of the _/
New York Times, or of the Wall Street Journal,
or even of the San Jose Mercury News?
\_ Easily. They're written for grade school level.
I read 2 of those 3 and you'll *never* find words
like that in those papers.
\_ I'm stunned. Are you people seriously arguing against clear
writing? Where did you learn that it's a good idea to use big
words when explaining something to someone? Would you be happy
if your Professors used "college level vocabulary" while explaining
class concepts? I think not.
\_ They had damn well better use "college level vocabulary".
I didn't pay tuition to learn academic concepts from
"Bow-wow the Dog and the Differential Equation". No one
cares if you talk heap big word, but I'd sure prefer
people using descriptive terms if possible. -John
\_ So you want them to smother you with 'big words' you
need to look up while trying to learn about Diff.Eqs.?
Most of your Profs have sufficiently larger vocabularies
that you'd learn lots of new words in class but no new
concepts. While teaching a new concept, it should
always be in terms already clearly understood. I didn't
come to Berkeley for an in-class vocabulary lesson. I
came here to learn. Vocabulary is rote memorization
which any 4th grader can master.
\_ Well, sure, if you are explaining synecdoche to someone whom
you suspect has never encountered the concept before, you're
not going to just randomly say "Well, that's synecdoche" and
walk away. But if you think that, as in the example above,
it might be effective to point out that calling the government
of the City of Berkeley "the City of Berkeley" is the same sort
of literary process as ones that the person may have
encountered before when reading, e.g., Shakespeare, why not
make a stab at it? It can save paragraphs and paragraphs of
typing, and one well-chosen word can often serve your purposes
better than hundreds of clumsy examples. I personally don't
think that the tradition of American anti-intellectualism (said
tradition which gives rise to the epithet of "using big words")
is one that I want to have any part in upholding. And you're
actually quite wrong about what I expect from my professors; I
want them _not_ to talk down to me. (They're often the only ones
who don't, and I have never found it to be an unrewarding
experience to make the effort to try to understand them.)
\_ No one mentioned Shakespear. Someone simply stated, "It's
synecdoche" without further explanation. Whether or not
further explanation was necessary we can't know unless the
original poster tells us if that was useful to them, but since
others had already typed out multi line common English
descriptions with examples, why not just leave them? Again, I
say that IMHO you'd be really pissed off if the Profs all packed
their lectures with those 'big words' and you spent your lecture
time flipping through a dictionary instead of learning a new
classroom concept. Since when is speaking in common English the
same as 'talking down' to someone? There's no correlation
between 'big words' in the classroom and enhanced learning.
God, please don't let any of these people teach my children in
anything other than a 4th grade English class. Vocabulary is
little more than rote memorization and I didn't go to Berkeley
and pay all that tuition and spend all that time to enhance a
skill I had mastered by the fourth grade. Oh, btw, I was wrong
about the newspapers. They write to an 8th grade level. :-)
\_ Shuddup John. You graduated years ago. One of the requirements
of old-fart-dom is to not make "back in my day" comments, at
least not in front of the children.
\_ 1) Not John.
2) John didn't graduate so long ago that he can't have a
valid opinion on the subject.
3) Yes, the writer has graduated but there isn't a single
"back in my day" comment in there. Had I said, "I don't
go to Berkeley and pay all that tuition..." the rest
would remain factually correct. The tense of my
phrasing doesn't change the facts. You copped out.
4) I would like to say that back in my day, the students
wouldn't have made such a ridiculous comment/reply, but
their reading comprehension was no better than yours,
to everyone's detriment. |
http://csua.com/feed/