{"id":11481,"date":"2020-07-31T17:08:29","date_gmt":"2020-07-31T21:08:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/?p=11481"},"modified":"2021-01-23T09:08:05","modified_gmt":"2021-01-23T13:08:05","slug":"11481","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/?p=11481","title":{"rendered":"Synecdoche, a suburb of Metonymy"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nI hope that you will avail yourself of the chapter file on Synecdoch<\/a><\/em><\/strong>\u00e9<\/strong><\/span><\/a> from the book by
\nDr. E. W. Bullinger entitled “Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible”. In it are many examples of this figure’s use throughout the Bible. This, as with all other figures discussed in the book, was not intended to be exhaustive, listing every occurrence, but simply to provide examples for further study.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nHaving worked through these examples in the past year, there are a few that I disagree with, but overall it provides ample example of the figure, and should help us to identify its use, as well as to clear up many misunderstood scriptures.
\n
\nDr. Bullinger’s definition of the figure, although I do not disagree with it, I believe falls short of helping the disciple to fully and clearly understand the figure. Therefore I offer a key that came to light for me, which I believe will help others as well.
\n
\nDr. Bullinger’s definition of Synecdoch<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00e9 <\/span><\/span><\/span>is as follows…..”<\/span><\/span><\/span>A figure by which one word receives something from another which is <\/span><\/span><\/span>internally<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> associated with it by the connection of two ideas: as when a part of a thing is put by a kind of <\/span><\/span><\/span>Metonymy<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong> for the whole of it, or the whole for a part. The difference between <\/span><\/span><\/span>Metonymy<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> and <\/span><\/span><\/span>Synecdoch<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00e9<\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/i>lies in this; that in Metonymy<\/em>, the exchange is made between two related nouns; while in <\/span><\/span><\/span>Synecdoch<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00e9<\/span><\/span><\/span>, the exchange is made between two associated ideas.”<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nMy dissatisfaction with this definition is not in it being incorrect, but in it being ambiguous
\n(not clearly understandable). Is there a difference between an association and a relation?
\n
\nHere are a few definitions of the words relation and association. When I went to school many years ago, we were taught that an acceptable definition of a word can never contain within it the actual word being defined. You cannot use the word you are defining to define the word you are defining. .<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As nouns the difference between A<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>ssociation <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>and R<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>elation
\n<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>is that <\/span><\/span><\/span>association <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>is the act of associating while <\/span><\/span><\/span>relation <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>is the manner in which two things may be associated<\/span><\/span><\/span>.
\nhttps:\/\/wikidiff.com\/association\/relation<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As nouns the difference between<\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/b>Association <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>and <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>Relationship
\n<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>is that <\/span><\/span><\/span>association <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>is the act of associating while <\/span><\/span><\/span>relationship <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>is connection or association; the condition of being related.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nhttps:\/\/wikidiff.com\/association\/relationship<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As\u00b7so\u00b7ci\u00b7at\u00b7ed,<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span> as\u00b7so\u00b7ci\u00b7at\u00b7ing
\n<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>verb (used with object), <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>to connect or bring into relation, as thought, feeling, memory, <\/span><\/span><\/span>etc<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>.:
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Many people associate dark clouds with depression and gloom.
\nhttps:\/\/www.dictionary.com\/browse\/associating<\/a> <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Relation<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>3.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong> <\/i>Connection between things; mutual respect, or what one thing is with regard to another; as the <\/span><\/span><\/span>relation<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em> <\/i>of a citizen to the state; the <\/span><\/span><\/span>relation<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em> <\/i>of a subject to the supreme authority; the <\/span><\/span><\/span>relation<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em> <\/i>of husband and wife, or of master and servant;<\/span><\/span><\/span> etc.<\/i><\/span><\/span>
\nhttp:\/\/webstersdictionary1828.com\/Dictionary\/relation<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>ssociation<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em> <\/b><\/i>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>3. <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>Union of things; apposition, as of particles of matter.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

4. <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>Union or connection of ideas. An <\/span><\/span><\/span>association <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em>of ideas is where two or more ideas constantly or naturally follow each other in the mind, so that one almost infallibly produces the other.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>http:\/\/webstersdictionary1828.com\/Dictionary\/association<\/a> <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\nASSO’CIATE<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>, <\/span><\/span><\/span>adjective
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em>1. <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>Joined in interest or purpose; confederate.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>http:\/\/webstersdictionary1828.com\/Dictionary\/associate<\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nBy now you can see my dissatisfaction with the ambiguity associated <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>with the <\/span><\/span><\/span>relation<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> these two words have in defining Metonymy <\/em>and Synecdoche<\/em>. I believe a better way to understand these two figures is to first understand Metonymy<\/em>, and then to view Synecdoche<\/em> as a special form of Metonymy<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nA Metonymy<\/em> deals with the changing of one word for another to which it has a relation, and Synecdoche<\/em> is a Metonymy <\/em>that makes that<\/b><\/u><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> change through quantity. Whether it be a part for the whole or the whole for a part, a quantity is being changed. A part is a lesser quantity or amount of the whole, and the whole is a greater part or quantity than the part. A species is one part of a larger group, the genus, and therefore a smaller amount of the whole. A genus is a larger part to which the species belongs. Therefore, both genus for species, and species for genus deal with amount. They have a relation to one another because they deal with the change of one word or idea for another word with which they have an association. This change, then, qualifies them as Metonymy<\/em>, for indeed “hand”, being a quantitative part of the whole body, expresses a relation “hand” has to the whole body as a part for the whole.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n“All hands on deck”, or “hired hand” are terms where a part of the body is used for the whole individual. It would be unrealistic to think “all hands on deck” meant only the hands of the individuals on board a ship were to be above deck, while the rest of the person remained below deck. It would likewise be inconceivable to think one could “hire a hand”, but not the entire individual. The hand has a relationship to the whole individual through its association with the individual as a part of the individual’s body. This change of words for other words, that have a relation to each other, makes Synecdoche<\/em> a Metonymy<\/em> through association.
\n
\nA Metonymy<\/em> deals with a defining characteristic or quality of a word as it relates to another word, and Synecdoche<\/em> does this quantitatively. Therefore, when thinking of Metonymy<\/em>, think quality or characteristic, and when considering Synecdoche<\/em>, think of a quantity. Qualitative<\/b><\/u><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> versus <\/span><\/span><\/span>Quantitative<\/b><\/u><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> is the key that I believe will help us better grasp these figures.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nI hope that you will join me in a thorough investigation of this principle by utilizing the examples given in the book. Together we can look at the examples of Metonymy<\/em> and Synecdoche<\/em> given in the book to better comprehend these two figures.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Synecdoche<\/em>: defined and examples from “Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible<\/i><\/span><\/span>“.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The exchange of one idea for another associated idea<\/i><\/span><\/span>.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Syn-ek’-do-kee<\/i>. Greek, \u03c2\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae<\/span><\/a>, from \u03c2\u03cd\u03bd<\/span><\/a> (sun), together with<\/i>, and \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae<\/span><\/a>, a receiving from<\/i>. A figure by which one word receives something from another which is internally<\/i> associated with it by the connection of two ideas: as when a part of a thing is put by a kind of Metonymy<\/i> for the whole of it, or the whole for a part. The difference between Metonymy<\/i> and Synecdoch<\/i>\u00e9<\/span> <\/i>lies in this; that in Metonymy, the exchange is made between two related nouns; while in Synecdoch<\/i>\u00e9<\/span>, the exchange is made between two associated ideas.
\n[See <\/span>A Greek-English Lexicon <\/b><\/span><\/span>by <\/span><\/span>Liddell, Henry George, 1811-1898<\/span><\/a> ;<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>Scott, Robert, 1811-1887<\/span><\/a> <\/strong>; <\/span><\/span>pg. 1483<\/strong><\/a>]<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/i><\/span> Synecdoch<\/i>\u00e9<\/span> of the Genus<\/b> is where the genus is put for a species<\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/i><\/span> Synecdoch<\/i>\u00e9<\/span> of the Species<\/b> is where a species is put for the genus<\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/i><\/span> Synecdoch<\/i>\u00e9<\/span> of the Whole<\/b> is where the whole is put for a part<\/b>: and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

. <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span> Synecdoch<\/i><\/span><\/span>\u00e9<\/span><\/span> of the <\/span><\/span>Part<\/b><\/span><\/span> is where a part is put for the <\/span><\/span>whole<\/b><\/span><\/span>.
\n<\/span><\/span>
\n.<\/span> <\/span><\/span> i<\/b><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span> <\/b>ALL <\/b><\/span><\/span>is put for<\/span><\/span> the greater part<\/b><\/span><\/span>.
\n7-31-2020
\nDr. Bullinger’s comments are within [<\/strong>brackets]<\/strong>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ex. 9:6<\/a> \u201cAnd all<\/b> the cattle of Egypt died\u201d:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[<\/strong>i<\/em>.e<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><\/i>, all kinds of cattle, not all the individual animals of all species. The Hebrew has <\/span><\/span>no article<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The kinds of cattle are particularised in verse 3. This must be so, for no sane writer could stultify himself by meaning \u201call\u201d in any other sense, when he goes on to speak of other beasts immediately after, in verse 10. …..]<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth <\/span><\/span><\/span>with<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em> blains upon man, and upon beast.”<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nHere we can see that one word “all” is used to mean another word or words
\n(“most”, or “the greater part”) as in Metonymy<\/em>, where one word is changed for another.
\nIt is clear that a quantity<\/b><\/span><\/span> is in mind.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

8-01-2020
\nEx. 9:25<\/a> \u201cAnd the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt.\u201d
\n[etc<\/i><\/span><\/span>.: <\/span><\/span>i.e<\/i><\/span><\/span>., all parts of it, or the greater part.]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nHere again, it is clear that a quantity<\/b><\/span><\/span> is in mind.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Metonymy
\nI. Metonymy of the CAUSE.<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This is when the cause is put for the effect; and it is of four kinds:
\ni. The <\/i>person <\/b><\/i>acting for <\/i>the thing<\/b><\/i> done<\/i>.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1. The Spirit for the gifts and operations of the Spirit.
\n7-31-2020
\nJohn 3:34<\/a> \u201cFor God giveth not the Spirit by measure<\/a> to Him\u201d:
\n[(i.e<\/i>., the gifts and operations produced by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a person<\/i>, and cannot, therefore, be measured out or given by measure. The \u201cmeasure\u201d must consequently mean the measure of His power or gifts bestowed.)]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\nNote: although the word measure is used here, and measure is something done with quantity, this is not a Synecdoche<\/em> because a part is not used to represent the whole, and vice versa. But here in John 3:34 the word measure (metron<\/em><\/a>) is not a verb, but a noun. Spirit does not have an amount according to measurable physical standards.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

8-01-2020
\nJohn 6:63<\/a> \u201cThe words that I speak unto you, they, are spirit
\n<\/span><\/span>(i.e<\/i>., the gift and operation of the Spirit of God),
\nand they are life
\n(i.e<\/i>., they give and produce divine, spiritual and eternal life).\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I hope that you will avail yourself of the chapter file on Synecdoch\u00e9 from the book by Dr. E. W. Bullinger entitled “Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible”. In it are many examples of this figure’s use throughout the Bible. This, as with all other figures discussed in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-information"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11481"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11675,"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11481\/revisions\/11675"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/figuresofspeechinthebible.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}