7 ms·

OK read it. Not impressed. Orwell is a liar because: "Let's move to his first rule 'Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used t

OK read it. Not impressed. Orwell is a liar because: "Let's move to his first rule 'Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print'? Yet we only need to read as far as the second sentence of his essay to see him talk of the 'collapse' of civilization. That would be a literal collapse would it?" This is pedantry. All language is metaphorical at some level. 'Vagina' literally means 'sheath'. Should we avoid that one? How about describing an argument as 'crystalline'? I would argue that 'collapse' in that sense is no more metaphorical than crystalline.

RodericDay 10y ago
The main writer is snarky and not that great, but a) the comment section goes more in depth b) it's not the only LanguageLog post/author taking down Orwell, it's just the first that comes up on google c) as pedantic as the criticisms are, it just so happens that so are Orwell's, so it's about as good as you need to be to criticize this essay.
- TheLarch 10y ago
  This is disappointing! If you find it snarky and not that great, why submit a link? c) is not logically consistent is it?
dragonwriter 10y ago
> 'Vagina' literally means 'sheath'. Not in English it doesn't.
- TheLarch 10y ago
  There is a continuum: someone, somewhere called it a sheath, and the metaphor was so apt that it was repeated until it eclipsed whatever word was current usage before. Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to judge which words are metaphorical and which aren't.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to judge which words are metaphorical This statement refutes your attempt to claim particular words are metaphorical.
    - TheLarch 10y ago
      Well, you're right in that vagina literally means vagina in English. And yes, there are occasions where language is unambiguously metaphorical. I do not, however, appreciate how either of these undermine my larger claim. Not sure if you disagree with me on a more fundamental level or not.

RodericDay 10y ago

The main writer is snarky and not that great, but a) the comment section goes more in depth b) it's not the only LanguageLog post/author taking down Orwell, it's just the first that comes up on google c) as pedantic as the criticisms are, it just so happens that so are Orwell's, so it's about as good as you need to be to criticize this essay.

TheLarch 10y ago
This is disappointing! If you find it snarky and not that great, why submit a link? c) is not logically consistent is it?

dragonwriter 10y ago

> 'Vagina' literally means 'sheath'. Not in English it doesn't.

TheLarch 10y ago
There is a continuum: someone, somewhere called it a sheath, and the metaphor was so apt that it was repeated until it eclipsed whatever word was current usage before. Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to judge which words are metaphorical and which aren't.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to judge which words are metaphorical This statement refutes your attempt to claim particular words are metaphorical.
  - TheLarch 10y ago
    Well, you're right in that vagina literally means vagina in English. And yes, there are occasions where language is unambiguously metaphorical. I do not, however, appreciate how either of these undermine my larger claim. Not sure if you disagree with me on a more fundamental level or not.