Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

71%
+3 −0
Q&A How did 'consideration' shift to signify grounds and the act of deliberation, then inducer of a grant or promise?

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...

posted 4y ago by Jirka Hanika‭  ·  edited 4y ago by Jirka Hanika‭

Answer
#2: Post edited by user avatar Jirka Hanika‭ · 2020-11-16T06:00:54Z (about 4 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 user avatar Jirka Hanika‭ · 2020-11-14T20:44:57Z (about 4 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.