I'm fascinated by this comment, and I'm trying to figure out why. I think it's that the author makes good points about an interesting topic, uses correct englis

I'm fascinated by this comment, and I'm trying to figure out why. I think it's that the author makes good points about an interesting topic, uses correct english, and even draws upon relevant examples; yet, somehow the post has an overall feeling of clunkiness. The author starts off with "But the very-literal should be reminded". Already any readers have to implicitly know that "the very-literal" refers to the specific group of individuals who have read the original post and also have a tendency to take things literally. It's not incorrect english, but since the word "literal" is more commonly used as an adjective, it does take a beat to realize that it serving to create a plural noun as part of "the very-literal". Again, not crazy strange, but it's a language device that is more commonly seen in other contexts rather than on Hacker News. The reader might now be expecting the author to describe what specifically shouldn't be taken literally, but instead author continues with "the linguistic mechanisms of synechdoche & metonymy". I think it's a big leap to expect the reader to know: a) what a "linguistic mechanism" is, ie, how does it differ from a phrase? b) what "synechdoche" is c) what "metonymy" is So now not only is the reader still in the dark about what they shouldn't be taking literally, but now they are likely grappling with trying to understand these definitions unless they are in the likely minority of people who already understand all of these. The author continues: "often result in a fuzzy use of parts, or regions, or emblematic examples, or associated items to mean some other closely-related more-amorphous entity." To me, this just reads as a poor redefinition of the previously mentioned terms. It's like saying "when words are used non-literally, it results in the non-literal use of words". It's not WRONG, per se, but it just leaves the reader more confused about what ultimate point the author is trying to make. To the author's credit, this sentence is immediately followed up with two good examples of synechdoche; however, unless the reader previously understood its definition the ultimate point of these examples is lost. On the other hand if the reader did previously understand the definition of synechdoche, then these examples only further the previous redefinition. At this point, the reader still hasn't been told what they aren't supposed to be taking literally. Finally, the author mentions "Silicon Valley", and it becomes more clear the the crux of this comment is regarding its definition. More examples are provided regarding the specifics of how "Silicon Valley" could be non-literally interpreted -- which is probably the gist of what the author was trying to convey in the first place, but it was buried 88 words into the comment. All in all, this comment could be distilled down to: "Silicon Valley shouldn't be interpreted literally; it can be interpreted a few ways, here are some examples."