Post History
It is a sequence of shifts of meaning. 1 to 2 is a metonymy. Some, such as Burke, would even call it a synecdoche, as long as they are ready to consider an "effect" to be a part of its "cause" or...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2020-11-16T06:00:54Z (over 3 years ago)
- 1 to 2 is a metonymy. Some, such as [Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche), would even call it a synecdoche, as long as they are ready to consider an "effect" to be a part of its "cause" or vice versa.
- 2 to 3 is an even clearer case of synecdoche, as long as the decision is understood to include a summary of its grounds.
- 3 to 4 is mainly specialization. Among possible kinds of grounds for the decision (specialization: that something is owed), it might be (specialization again) that the duty exists because of a reciprocal exchange in the past. Then one more synecdoche makes the final hop between the reciprocal exchange which created the debt and that which has made it reciprocal.
I think that the "3 to 4" step would be difficult to decompose in the quoted text section (as marked in red), because the intermediate meaning ("reciprocal exchange in the past as a cause of a debt") might well be unattested - I mean, the word "consideration" might be pretty thoroughly unused in such a hypothetical meaning. That's why the quoted text continues to explain further.
- It is a sequence of shifts of meaning.
- 1 to 2 is a metonymy. Some, such as [Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche), would even call it a synecdoche, as long as they are ready to consider an "effect" to be a part of its "cause" or vice versa.
- 2 to 3 is an even clearer case of synecdoche, as long as the decision is understood to include a summary of its grounds.
- 3 to 4 is mainly specialization. Among possible kinds of grounds for the decision (specialization: that something is owed), it might be (specialization again) that the duty exists because of a reciprocal exchange in the past. Then one more synecdoche makes the final hop between the reciprocal exchange which created the debt and that which has made it reciprocal.
- I think that the "3 to 4" step would have been difficult to decompose further in the quoted text section (as marked in red), because the intermediate meaning ("reciprocal exchange in the past as a cause of a debt") might well be unattested - I mean, the word "consideration" might be pretty thoroughly unused in such a hypothetical meaning. That's why the quoted text continues to explain further.
#1: Initial revision
by
Jirka Hanika
·
2020-11-14T20:44:57Z (over 3 years ago)
1 to 2 is a metonymy. Some, such as [Burke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche), would even call it a synecdoche, as long as they are ready to consider an "effect" to be a part of its "cause" or vice versa.
2 to 3 is an even clearer case of synecdoche, as long as the decision is understood to include a summary of its grounds.
3 to 4 is mainly specialization. Among possible kinds of grounds for the decision (specialization: that something is owed), it might be (specialization again) that the duty exists because of a reciprocal exchange in the past. Then one more synecdoche makes the final hop between the reciprocal exchange which created the debt and that which has made it reciprocal.
I think that the "3 to 4" step would be difficult to decompose in the quoted text section (as marked in red), because the intermediate meaning ("reciprocal exchange in the past as a cause of a debt") might well be unattested - I mean, the word "consideration" might be pretty thoroughly unused in such a hypothetical meaning. That's why the quoted text continues to explain further.