5 ms·

No, it isn’t. The definition is of a metaphor. A metaphor doesn’t become a literalism just because a dictionary included it.

tshaddox 4y ago
The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." If you want to talk about the "original" meaning or "etymologically faithful" meaning or whatever, then go for it, but note that most modern baby cradles aren't at all baskets in the sense that the English word originated. That's because all words originate as imperfectly-specified references to things and concepts. The things and concepts and our references to them change over time.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." I don't really care to weigh in on the rest of this spat, but this isn't a contradiction: it is the case that a given sense of a word, listed in a dictionary, may yet be metaphorical—it is not the case that finding a definition of a word in a dictionary proves that that sense isn't metaphorical, and in fact, any common metaphorical usage of a word is quite likely to end up in a dictionary, at which point it does not (necessarily!) stop being metaphorical. (I find the rest of the post basically sound, for all the nothing my judgement on that is worth—this part is just not strong, is all)
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    I just think it’s a bit of a weird line to draw because you have to somehow choose how far back to go in the etymological history of the word and insist that every different meaning thereafter is “metaphorical.” Personally I wouldn’t call usages that are so widely used and understood that they’re in every dictionary “figurative.”
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  Yes. But at this point in time, no one is looking at a river or valley and using the noun “cradle” to categorize it. I’m not saying it could never become a literalism—only that it remains metaphorical, as a way to invoke the idea of a birthplace.
RC_ITR 4y ago
Definition's etymology is literally from dēfīnīre, which was a Latin word that was originally used in the context of setting bounds to physical land. This then turned into setting bounds around the meaning of words. One can't play fast and loose with how language works. Almost all words got their meaning through metaphor as society become more abstract and complex. Just because one doesn't like something doesn't make it less valid.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  Then don't play fast and loose. Maybe one day we will look at a river or valley and use the word "cradle" in a non-metaphorical manner. Right now, we don't.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I'm very confused by your stance. I get that cradle started out meaning "basket" (like definire started out meaning drawing boundaries), but now it literally also means the place where a civilizations started (like define literally means to describe a word). Are you denying that process happens? Can words never expand in definition? What about computer terms like type? Can a person never literally type on a computer in any context ever? Or should I just give up because this is a personal neurological thing that we will just disagree on forever due to differences in how we process inputs about the world?
    - GavinMcG 4y ago
      Not denying that the process happens, and maybe it's irreconcilable. But I'll attempt to describe my position in more general terms. The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning. Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example. I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself. I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.

tshaddox 4y ago

The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." If you want to talk about the "original" meaning or "etymologically faithful" meaning or whatever, then go for it, but note that most modern baby cradles aren't at all baskets in the sense that the English word originated. That's because all words originate as imperfectly-specified references to things and concepts. The things and concepts and our references to them change over time.

yamtaddle 4y ago
> The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." I don't really care to weigh in on the rest of this spat, but this isn't a contradiction: it is the case that a given sense of a word, listed in a dictionary, may yet be metaphorical—it is not the case that finding a definition of a word in a dictionary proves that that sense isn't metaphorical, and in fact, any common metaphorical usage of a word is quite likely to end up in a dictionary, at which point it does not (necessarily!) stop being metaphorical. (I find the rest of the post basically sound, for all the nothing my judgement on that is worth—this part is just not strong, is all)
- tshaddox 4y ago
  I just think it’s a bit of a weird line to draw because you have to somehow choose how far back to go in the etymological history of the word and insist that every different meaning thereafter is “metaphorical.” Personally I wouldn’t call usages that are so widely used and understood that they’re in every dictionary “figurative.”
GavinMcG 4y ago
Yes. But at this point in time, no one is looking at a river or valley and using the noun “cradle” to categorize it. I’m not saying it could never become a literalism—only that it remains metaphorical, as a way to invoke the idea of a birthplace.

RC_ITR 4y ago

Definition's etymology is literally from dēfīnīre, which was a Latin word that was originally used in the context of setting bounds to physical land. This then turned into setting bounds around the meaning of words. One can't play fast and loose with how language works. Almost all words got their meaning through metaphor as society become more abstract and complex. Just because one doesn't like something doesn't make it less valid.

GavinMcG 4y ago
Then don't play fast and loose. Maybe one day we will look at a river or valley and use the word "cradle" in a non-metaphorical manner. Right now, we don't.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  I'm very confused by your stance. I get that cradle started out meaning "basket" (like definire started out meaning drawing boundaries), but now it literally also means the place where a civilizations started (like define literally means to describe a word). Are you denying that process happens? Can words never expand in definition? What about computer terms like type? Can a person never literally type on a computer in any context ever? Or should I just give up because this is a personal neurological thing that we will just disagree on forever due to differences in how we process inputs about the world?
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    Not denying that the process happens, and maybe it's irreconcilable. But I'll attempt to describe my position in more general terms. The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning. Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example. I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself. I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.