synecdoche: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (such as society for high society), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage)
Other way around - synecdoche usually refers to a whole through a part (calling an entire ship by just saying stern, for example) but a part through a whole is usually called metonymy. Synecdoche is a subset of metonymy.
Edit: the wikipedia article does mention that it can be a part through a whole. But this is at odds with my Classical background.
People might find it fun to know there is a literary term for this -- synecdoche!
> a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning “Cleveland's baseball team”)
(in this case, "circular saws" representing the whole class of dangerous power tools)
Similarly to rhizome, I appreciate your use of a word I hadn't seen in a long while (and that HN spellcheckers flag), and I agree this is much more interesting than the article, but I would have gone with something in {emblematic, symptomatic, representative}.
I'm holding firm in claiming that synecdoche should be reserved for referencing oral or written expressions, viz., intentional usages of a part to indicate the whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche is probably the term, although the context in which "synecdoche" is used is generally analysis of literature / "English class."
When people say "the crown" when referencing a monarch and their administration, that's a textbook synecdoche. Similarly, when people refer to the number of "seats" in an enterprise, as with a "10 seat license", that is also a synecdoche; obviously, the licensor could care less about seats per se; you pay even if you use a standing desk. :)
I am unapologetic about introducing this confusing word into the thread, as this discussion is more interesting than the blog post we're commenting on.
That is what is called a synekdoche, where a part refers to the whole or the whole refers to it's part. A good word to know as a quick reply when someone starts trying to debate the meaning of word.
The word "synecdochic" exists and you can use it in this context, but it's a matter of lightning and lightning bug. Isn't the word "emblematic" more appropriate? We're not just using a part to signify the whole; we're stating that the part typifies the whole, and "emblematic" embodies both of those meanings. Besides, it's less likely to confuse, and applying Occam's razor to language, the best word is the simplest one that most closely approximates the intended meaning.
Corey Doctrow has a good term for this, or at least it’s him i heard say it: enshitification. I think it just captures the dynamics beautifully, it’s almost poetic.
reply