extension and metonymy

[jiang]

Dear teachers,

I get confused by "extension" and "metonymy" in translation theory.
For example, two authors used the sentence "Every life has its roses and thorns". But one author puts it under "extension" while the other puts it under "metonymy". Could you please kindly explain the difference between the two?

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.

Jiang

[jiang]

Hi,

I received an answer to this quesiton posted by xversion throught email. But it does not appear here. Is there anything wrong with this website?

xversion1 thank you very much for your help.

Jiang

Dear teachers,

I get confused by "extension" and "metonymy" in translation theory.
For example, two authors used the sentence "Every life has its roses and thorns". But one author puts it under "extension" while the other puts it under "metonymy". Could you please kindly explain the difference between the two?

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.

Jiang

[5jj]

I received an answer to this quesiton posted by xversion throught email. But it does not appear here. Is there anything wrong with this website?

Some of xxversion's answers have been removed, because they were so inaccurate. I suggest you ignore the email you received. Wait until you receive an answer here from someone you trust. In the meantime, see if this helps: Metonymy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[emka]

Not a teacher

I don’t think it is either.
To me “Life has its roses and thorns” looks like a metaphorical extension.
And I don’t think it’s even a very good one, at least not for the purpose of grammar explanation, because the two things it compares are not on the same conceptual level.
Good and bad > roses and thorns. I admit it sounds poetic. But being parts of the plant (like petals, stem, leaves) “thorns” are a sub-category of “rose” while “bad” is not a subcategory of “good” but the opposite. A formally balanced, same-level metaphorical extension would have been “Life has its roses and thistles”, for example.

[Tdol]

Hi,

I received an answer to this quesiton posted by xversion throught email. But it does not appear here. Is there anything wrong with this website?

xversion1 thank you very much for your help.

Jiang

There's nothing wrong with the website- xversion1 was giving out incorrect answers, many of which were ridiculous.

Like Emka, I don't really see this expression as metonymy.

[jiang]

Hi fivejedjon,

Thank you so much for your explanation. Now I understand what has happened. I shall visit Wikipedia in a few minutes.

Have a nice weekend.

Jiang

Some of xxversion's answers have been removed, because they were so inaccurate. I suggest you ignore the email you received. Wait until you receive an answer here from someone you trust. In the meantime, see if this helps: Metonymy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jiang]

Dear emka,

Thank you so much for your explanation. Rhetorical books read it is a rhetocial device. But it seems they themselves cannot agree with each other, which confused me. I think your explanation makes it clearer.

Have a nice weekend.

Jiang

Not a teacher

I don’t think it is either.
To me “Life has its roses and thorns” looks like a metaphorical extension.
And I don’t think it’s even a very good one, at least not for the purpose of grammar explanation, because the two things it compares are not on the same conceptual level.
Good and bad > roses and thorns. I admit it sounds poetic. But being parts of the plant (like petals, stem, leaves) “thorns” are a sub-category of “rose” while “bad” is not a subcategory of “good” but the opposite. A formally balanced, same-level metaphorical extension would have been “Life has its roses and thistles”, for example.

[jiang]

Hi Tdol,

Thank you very much for your explanation. Now I see.

Have a nice weekend.

Jiang

There's nothing wrong with the website- xversion1 was giving out incorrect answers, many of which were ridiculous.

Like Emka, I don't really see this expression as metonymy.