Ask Figaro
Got a question about rhetoric, figures, Figaro, Figaro's book,the nature of the universe, or just want to lavish praise?
Write in the form at the bottom of this page.
Dear Figaro,
I am curious about your opinions (subjective or otherwise) of undergraduate Rhetoric programs. What might be your one through ten of such colleges?
Yours,Rowland - Buenos Aires
Dear Roland,
Being an amateur rhetorician, I would not presume to rate rhetoric programs. Here's a link that lists programs with a brief description of each: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~smit/UndergradProgramsRhetProfTechWriting.htm.
Figaro strongly recommends looking for studies that combine a thorough grounding in theory with a strong dose of practice. A good program should include oral address and verbal skills along with writing; too much of academia seems to presume that our increasingly loquacious world is run by Bartleby the Scrivener.
Alas, the Ivy League and most elite small colleges pretty much ignore the art. Alums of these schools should lobby to restore rhetoric to its rightful place in the curriculum.
Yrs,
Fig.
I am curious about your opinions (subjective or otherwise) of undergraduate Rhetoric programs. What might be your one through ten of such colleges?
Yours,Rowland - Buenos Aires
Dear Roland,
Being an amateur rhetorician, I would not presume to rate rhetoric programs. Here's a link that lists programs with a brief description of each: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~smit/UndergradProgramsRhetProfTechWriting.htm.
Figaro strongly recommends looking for studies that combine a thorough grounding in theory with a strong dose of practice. A good program should include oral address and verbal skills along with writing; too much of academia seems to presume that our increasingly loquacious world is run by Bartleby the Scrivener.
Alas, the Ivy League and most elite small colleges pretty much ignore the art. Alums of these schools should lobby to restore rhetoric to its rightful place in the curriculum.
Yrs,
Fig.
August 10, 2006 |
Rowland
Rowland
Dear mr Figaro,
I have a question for you. Somebody says:
'We all know that Mr X is stupid.' 'We all' is a paralogism. But does it have a special name?
Thank you in advance,
Arie Vrolijk
---------------
Dear Arie,
To a fancy-pants rhetorician it's a figure of thought called an APODIXIS ("proof"), an argument based on a principle accepted by the audience.
But I prefer to call it a COMMONPLACE--a belief or idea we hold in common. To argue successfully, you have to start on that ground before leading your audience to your own rhetorical terrain.
The commonplace anchors Aristotle's ENTHYMEME (EN-thih-meme), a neat little argument packet that's easier to use than pronounce. It consists of two parts: commonplace, and conclusion. We all know that Mr. X is stupid, so we shouldn't listen to him.
A logician might label your expression a fallacy called argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the crowd. But we all know logicians are stupid.
Yrs,
Figaro
Thank you for your answer!I enjoy your daily figure. It makes my day!
Arie Vrolijk
I have a question for you. Somebody says:
'We all know that Mr X is stupid.' 'We all' is a paralogism. But does it have a special name?
Thank you in advance,
Arie Vrolijk
---------------
Dear Arie,
To a fancy-pants rhetorician it's a figure of thought called an APODIXIS ("proof"), an argument based on a principle accepted by the audience.
But I prefer to call it a COMMONPLACE--a belief or idea we hold in common. To argue successfully, you have to start on that ground before leading your audience to your own rhetorical terrain.
The commonplace anchors Aristotle's ENTHYMEME (EN-thih-meme), a neat little argument packet that's easier to use than pronounce. It consists of two parts: commonplace, and conclusion. We all know that Mr. X is stupid, so we shouldn't listen to him.
A logician might label your expression a fallacy called argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the crowd. But we all know logicians are stupid.
Yrs,
Figaro
Thank you for your answer!I enjoy your daily figure. It makes my day!
Arie Vrolijk
August 6, 2006 |
a. vrolijk
a. vrolijk
Dear Figaro,
On the figures, you could also lists the language root words like in Greek or Latin?
Thanks for a fun educational website.
Wayne
----------------------
Dear Wayne,
In most entries you'll find the term's translation in parenthesized quotes. If you don't see it, go to the rhetorical terms for other examples: http://www.inpraiseofargument.com/terms/.
And thanks for the kind words.
Yrs,
Figaro
On the figures, you could also lists the language root words like in Greek or Latin?
Thanks for a fun educational website.
Wayne
----------------------
Dear Wayne,
In most entries you'll find the term's translation in parenthesized quotes. If you don't see it, go to the rhetorical terms for other examples: http://www.inpraiseofargument.com/terms/.
And thanks for the kind words.
Yrs,
Figaro
August 5, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
I have a question.
What does one call it when a group purposefully manipulates the language into in-group and out-group forms? Atticism implies the language is returning to a real or imagined past form. And it's not quite the development of slang or jargon, which is spontaneous.
An example might help. According to Stephen Pinker, the reason that we should not split infinitives dates back to the 1800s. During that time, elites wanted to distinguish their English. The best way to come off as high class was to speak with style. Style manuals began to flourish. In the spirit of capitalism, they began to compete. The manuals became longer and more arcane to make the user feel more erudite. (Arcane = erudite? The birth of pomo?) Hence, English-speaking elites chose to adopt new rules in order to sound more sophisticated than the plebs around them.
What is that process called?
Doc L
----------------------------
Dear Doc,
There is no commonly accepted rhetorical term for this strategy, so we'll call it "code grooming." It'll be our own exclusive term.
Kids use code grooming in their instant messages. Look how fast they type—faster than some of them can think. Why is it all in lower case? Surely they know how to use capital letters and punctuation; they probably could spell out entire words if they wanted to. What are they saying? You have no idea, and that’s partly the point of all those weird abbreviations, acronyms, emoticons and wds 2 tuff 2 rede, lol [“laugh out loud” for the uninitiated].
President Bush is a master at it, as you can see here: http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/talk-like-bush/.
As for your particular example, I believe the taboo on the split infinitive came from the British elite's desire to replicate their classical training in English. It works the same way as any other "correct" grammar: to bind one group together, and exclude others.
Yrs,
Figaro
I have a question.
What does one call it when a group purposefully manipulates the language into in-group and out-group forms? Atticism implies the language is returning to a real or imagined past form. And it's not quite the development of slang or jargon, which is spontaneous.
An example might help. According to Stephen Pinker, the reason that we should not split infinitives dates back to the 1800s. During that time, elites wanted to distinguish their English. The best way to come off as high class was to speak with style. Style manuals began to flourish. In the spirit of capitalism, they began to compete. The manuals became longer and more arcane to make the user feel more erudite. (Arcane = erudite? The birth of pomo?) Hence, English-speaking elites chose to adopt new rules in order to sound more sophisticated than the plebs around them.
What is that process called?
Doc L
----------------------------
Dear Doc,
There is no commonly accepted rhetorical term for this strategy, so we'll call it "code grooming." It'll be our own exclusive term.
Kids use code grooming in their instant messages. Look how fast they type—faster than some of them can think. Why is it all in lower case? Surely they know how to use capital letters and punctuation; they probably could spell out entire words if they wanted to. What are they saying? You have no idea, and that’s partly the point of all those weird abbreviations, acronyms, emoticons and wds 2 tuff 2 rede, lol [“laugh out loud” for the uninitiated].
President Bush is a master at it, as you can see here: http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/talk-like-bush/.
As for your particular example, I believe the taboo on the split infinitive came from the British elite's desire to replicate their classical training in English. It works the same way as any other "correct" grammar: to bind one group together, and exclude others.
Yrs,
Figaro
August 5, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Just wondered where the saying: Things are going swimmingly" comes from.
Thanks.
Pamela
---------------
Dear Pamela,
I can only tell you what the Oxford English Dictionary does: The first published use of "swimmingly" appears in "The Prophetess," an early 17th century play by John Fletcher. The term makes a nice metaphor, implying smooth, steady progress.
Fletcher, we're guessing, cut quite a figure in the Thames.
Yrs,
Figaro
Just wondered where the saying: Things are going swimmingly" comes from.
Thanks.
Pamela
---------------
Dear Pamela,
I can only tell you what the Oxford English Dictionary does: The first published use of "swimmingly" appears in "The Prophetess," an early 17th century play by John Fletcher. The term makes a nice metaphor, implying smooth, steady progress.
Fletcher, we're guessing, cut quite a figure in the Thames.
Yrs,
Figaro
August 3, 2006 |
Pamela
Pamela
Dear Figaro,
A propos of your point at the end of the "How to Seduce a Cop" book segment {http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/seduce-a-cop/}, don't we wimps earn the world's resentment easily? The fighters and especially martyrs froth with jealousy at those who concede points, don't get angry, and get their way. Is political or financial power the only evasion of that hate? And is the maintenance of the power to keep the resentful ones distant the one case for aggression? (I'm thinking about Israel's poised mixture of diplomatic words with scary violence.)
Spencer
--------------------
Dear Spencer,
The resentment of extremists is one of the pleasures of moderation. And if you're getting your way, what's the point of denying yourself that resentment?
I half agree with you about Israel. Scary violence, yes. But poised diplomacy? If that's poised, I'd hate to see the Israelis when they're upset.
Don't get me wrong, Spencer. I don't think that rhetoric alone will save the world. But without it, we're doomed.
Yrs,
Figaro
A propos of your point at the end of the "How to Seduce a Cop" book segment {http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/seduce-a-cop/}, don't we wimps earn the world's resentment easily? The fighters and especially martyrs froth with jealousy at those who concede points, don't get angry, and get their way. Is political or financial power the only evasion of that hate? And is the maintenance of the power to keep the resentful ones distant the one case for aggression? (I'm thinking about Israel's poised mixture of diplomatic words with scary violence.)
Spencer
--------------------
Dear Spencer,
The resentment of extremists is one of the pleasures of moderation. And if you're getting your way, what's the point of denying yourself that resentment?
I half agree with you about Israel. Scary violence, yes. But poised diplomacy? If that's poised, I'd hate to see the Israelis when they're upset.
Don't get me wrong, Spencer. I don't think that rhetoric alone will save the world. But without it, we're doomed.
Yrs,
Figaro
August 3, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Where did this originate:
"JUDGEMENT came
JUDGEMENT saw
JUDGEMENT judged them
one and all"?
Pat
-------------------
Dear Pat,
I haven't the vaguest. It sounds Puritanical to me. Can anyone help us out?
In Aristotle's Rhetoric, "judgement" (krisis) was a decision made by an audience as the outcome of persuasion. Christianity took judgement away from people and gave it to God. The God of Puritans and their decendants uses His judgement to determine who belongs to the Elect.
Sorry. Figaro gets pedantic when he's afraid he doesn't know something.
Fig.
Where did this originate:
"JUDGEMENT came
JUDGEMENT saw
JUDGEMENT judged them
one and all"?
Pat
-------------------
Dear Pat,
I haven't the vaguest. It sounds Puritanical to me. Can anyone help us out?
In Aristotle's Rhetoric, "judgement" (krisis) was a decision made by an audience as the outcome of persuasion. Christianity took judgement away from people and gave it to God. The God of Puritans and their decendants uses His judgement to determine who belongs to the Elect.
Sorry. Figaro gets pedantic when he's afraid he doesn't know something.
Fig.
July 31, 2006 |
pat
pat
Dear Figaro,
I was reading about your upcoming book {http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/why-americans-cant-argue/} and read the following: "If it weren't for the wine, I would have shrunk in embarrassment. People at other tables were looking at us, and they were laughing—with us, most likely, but still. Here in the States, only the rude and the insane disagree in private conversation. "
Am I missing what you are expressing or did you mean public conversation?
Thanks,
Anne
------------------
Dear Anne,
I meant "private" in the sense of "not in the media," which really isn’t very clear, is it? Maybe I should change it to: “Here in the States, we reserve open disagreement to the rude, the insane, and politicians.”
Does that make sense? It’s a figure called “anesis,” in which the previous examples diminish the last one. (See my exchange with Michael, a little farther down this page.)
And thanks for the catch, Anne.
Yrs,
Fig.
I was reading about your upcoming book {http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/why-americans-cant-argue/} and read the following: "If it weren't for the wine, I would have shrunk in embarrassment. People at other tables were looking at us, and they were laughing—with us, most likely, but still. Here in the States, only the rude and the insane disagree in private conversation. "
Am I missing what you are expressing or did you mean public conversation?
Thanks,
Anne
------------------
Dear Anne,
I meant "private" in the sense of "not in the media," which really isn’t very clear, is it? Maybe I should change it to: “Here in the States, we reserve open disagreement to the rude, the insane, and politicians.”
Does that make sense? It’s a figure called “anesis,” in which the previous examples diminish the last one. (See my exchange with Michael, a little farther down this page.)
And thanks for the catch, Anne.
Yrs,
Fig.
July 29, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
I was just reading the Drudge Report and saw two quotes. One was by that oh-so-slightly degenerate rock star, George Michaels: "I have been doing this on and off since I was a teenager..." Another was put forth by our mildly suspect Tour de France winner, Floyd Landis: 'All I'm asking for is that I be given a chance to prove I'm innocent." I recognized there were two different types of rhetoric at play and wondered which ones they were.
Martha
-----------------------
Dear Martha,
Michaels commits the fallacy of antecedent: it's happened before so it's OK. Floyd employs an age-old appeal to procedure: let the system prove I'm guilty.
In rhetoric, at least, Floyd didn't cheat.
Yrs,
Figaro
I was just reading the Drudge Report and saw two quotes. One was by that oh-so-slightly degenerate rock star, George Michaels: "I have been doing this on and off since I was a teenager..." Another was put forth by our mildly suspect Tour de France winner, Floyd Landis: 'All I'm asking for is that I be given a chance to prove I'm innocent." I recognized there were two different types of rhetoric at play and wondered which ones they were.
Martha
-----------------------
Dear Martha,
Michaels commits the fallacy of antecedent: it's happened before so it's OK. Floyd employs an age-old appeal to procedure: let the system prove I'm guilty.
In rhetoric, at least, Floyd didn't cheat.
Yrs,
Figaro
July 29, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Hey Fig:
Came across these lines during my transcription of JFK's Rice University Address:
"This year's space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at 5 billion-400 million dollars a year -- a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year."
Q: In 5 secs. or less, name the figure that occurs at the end....Ready, GO!
Yes, the Republicans ARE doing a better job of rhetorizing their ideas; but perhaps those ideas make for better rhetoric. ;-)
Michael
Dear Michael,
It's a paraprosdokian, certainly, the surprise-ending figure. (The term alone takes 5 seconds to pronounce.) In a way, it's also an argumentum ad fortiori--if we can afford cigarettes, we can afford space. And it's an epitrope, which concedes an argument, usually ironically.
Yrs,
Figaro
[NOTE: Michael followed up with an email saying he had anesis in mind, a figure that's not yet in Figaro's list of rhetorical terms. The anesis ends a point with a clause or sentence that diminishes what the speaker said before. It's a superb figure of irony, which Kennedy uses superbly. You stumped us, Michael! By the way: Michael does a great rhetoric website of his own, AmericanRhetoric.com.]
Came across these lines during my transcription of JFK's Rice University Address:
"This year's space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at 5 billion-400 million dollars a year -- a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year."
Q: In 5 secs. or less, name the figure that occurs at the end....Ready, GO!
Yes, the Republicans ARE doing a better job of rhetorizing their ideas; but perhaps those ideas make for better rhetoric. ;-)
Michael
Dear Michael,
It's a paraprosdokian, certainly, the surprise-ending figure. (The term alone takes 5 seconds to pronounce.) In a way, it's also an argumentum ad fortiori--if we can afford cigarettes, we can afford space. And it's an epitrope, which concedes an argument, usually ironically.
Yrs,
Figaro
[NOTE: Michael followed up with an email saying he had anesis in mind, a figure that's not yet in Figaro's list of rhetorical terms. The anesis ends a point with a clause or sentence that diminishes what the speaker said before. It's a superb figure of irony, which Kennedy uses superbly. You stumped us, Michael! By the way: Michael does a great rhetoric website of his own, AmericanRhetoric.com.]
July 27, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Love today's blog [July 26: four-word summaries.]. What other political issues can you squeeze down to four words? The stem cell one was a fine start!
Dorothy
Dear Dorothy,
Abortion: Bods or dead babies?
Gun control: Constitutional gun-slinging.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Toodle-oo caribou
Figaro welcomes more entries.
Love today's blog [July 26: four-word summaries.]. What other political issues can you squeeze down to four words? The stem cell one was a fine start!
Dorothy
Dear Dorothy,
Abortion: Bods or dead babies?
Gun control: Constitutional gun-slinging.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Toodle-oo caribou
Figaro welcomes more entries.
July 26, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
This is a random question, but I was told you might possibly have some sort of an answer.
I work on a political campaign in South Dakota and we have a story we would like to get a hold of the Daily Show for. Is there any way that you know of that we can contact them? (There is a point to giving them the story, other than it's amusing. The gist is that the current governor asked the State to "pray for rain.")
I know this might be a long shot, but any help would be great.
Thanks,
Emily
Dear Emily,
I'm flattered that you would consider the possibility of the Stewster and Figaro being pals. Alas, they're not. Which may be a good thing in the long run. What if Jon Stewart subscribed to this site and ended up quitting the show in despair over his relative ignorance of figures? I shudder at the thought.
Yrs,
Fig.
I work on a political campaign in South Dakota and we have a story we would like to get a hold of the Daily Show for. Is there any way that you know of that we can contact them? (There is a point to giving them the story, other than it's amusing. The gist is that the current governor asked the State to "pray for rain.")
I know this might be a long shot, but any help would be great.
Thanks,
Emily
Dear Emily,
I'm flattered that you would consider the possibility of the Stewster and Figaro being pals. Alas, they're not. Which may be a good thing in the long run. What if Jon Stewart subscribed to this site and ended up quitting the show in despair over his relative ignorance of figures? I shudder at the thought.
Yrs,
Fig.
July 25, 2006 |
Emily
Emily
Dear Figaro,
I introduced someone to your site. Her response -"Fark headline writer with an Ivy League diploma". Might be close, besides she is really attractive.
Dan
Dear Dan,
I don’t have an Ivy diploma (worked there but went to Middlebury), haven’t written headlines in years, and don’t even know what “fark” means. But since she’s attractive I’m happy to concede.
Yrs,
Fig.
I introduced someone to your site. Her response -"Fark headline writer with an Ivy League diploma". Might be close, besides she is really attractive.
Dan
Dear Dan,
I don’t have an Ivy diploma (worked there but went to Middlebury), haven’t written headlines in years, and don’t even know what “fark” means. But since she’s attractive I’m happy to concede.
Yrs,
Fig.
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Is there no difference between chiasmus and antimetabole?
Hal
Dear Hal,
No, there's little difference between the two, though some rhetoricians say the chiasmus duplicates the clauses more precisely.
Yrs,
Fig.
Is there no difference between chiasmus and antimetabole?
Hal
Dear Hal,
No, there's little difference between the two, though some rhetoricians say the chiasmus duplicates the clauses more precisely.
Yrs,
Fig.
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Do you know if there is a rhetorical term for "I won't mention this damning fact" and then proceeding to mention it? I could have sworn I read it on a daily figure, and I can't find it!
If you can help, I'd be very grateful indeed.
If not, thanks anyway for brightening my day. I've turned on some of my students to your site too.
Carrie
Dear Carrie,
Actually, there are several:
Apophasis
Ennoia
Paralipsis
Thanks for the kind words. Please let other teachers know of the site as well.
Yrs,
Figaro
Do you know if there is a rhetorical term for "I won't mention this damning fact" and then proceeding to mention it? I could have sworn I read it on a daily figure, and I can't find it!
If you can help, I'd be very grateful indeed.
If not, thanks anyway for brightening my day. I've turned on some of my students to your site too.
Carrie
Dear Carrie,
Actually, there are several:
Apophasis
Ennoia
Paralipsis
Thanks for the kind words. Please let other teachers know of the site as well.
Yrs,
Figaro
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
I would like to know what kind of language this is:
"Kent: Arnie, this is not the time ...
Arnie: You're not the time, Kent, you're not the time."
from snpp.com/episodes/CABF16.
I don't think it's just "elenchus."
Please tell me,
Andrew
Dear Andrew,
No, it's not an elenchus. I'd call it several things:
1. An ad hominem attack, specifically one that goes after the adversary's "eunoia" (good will). It's a common political technique, declaring the opponent to be out of touch.
2. It's also a palilogia, an emphatic repetition.
3. Also a conduplicatio, which repeats a phrase in succeeding clauses.
You could also call it a kind of ploce, which changes the meaning of a word through its repetition. But because Arnie's meaning change is meaningless, I'll count that one out.
Yrs,
Figaro
[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]
I would like to know what kind of language this is:
"Kent: Arnie, this is not the time ...
Arnie: You're not the time, Kent, you're not the time."
from snpp.com/episodes/CABF16.
I don't think it's just "elenchus."
Please tell me,
Andrew
Dear Andrew,
No, it's not an elenchus. I'd call it several things:
1. An ad hominem attack, specifically one that goes after the adversary's "eunoia" (good will). It's a common political technique, declaring the opponent to be out of touch.
2. It's also a palilogia, an emphatic repetition.
3. Also a conduplicatio, which repeats a phrase in succeeding clauses.
You could also call it a kind of ploce, which changes the meaning of a word through its repetition. But because Arnie's meaning change is meaningless, I'll count that one out.
Yrs,
Figaro
[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Is the word "Daily" in "Daily Figure" a figure of speech? If so, what kind? Or - am I missing out on these (great!) emails 3 days out of 5?
Thanks,
Lisa
Dear Lisa,
It's a figure of speech called a "lie." I've been having software trouble. (That's an "excuse.")
Yrs,
Fig.
Thanks,
Lisa
Dear Lisa,
It's a figure of speech called a "lie." I've been having software trouble. (That's an "excuse.")
Yrs,
Fig.
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Dear Figaro,
Where are the "figures" from the likes of Billery, Kerry, Dean....
Just wondering, maybe they're not capable.
John
Dear John,
You'll find 'em, and there are more to come, John, but I figure that figures, like journalism, should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, and the Republicans just happen to be in power at the moment. They're also far more capable of rhetoric than their dopey counterparts.
Thanks for reading.
Yrs,
Figaro
Where are the "figures" from the likes of Billery, Kerry, Dean....
Just wondering, maybe they're not capable.
John
Dear John,
You'll find 'em, and there are more to come, John, but I figure that figures, like journalism, should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, and the Republicans just happen to be in power at the moment. They're also far more capable of rhetoric than their dopey counterparts.
Thanks for reading.
Yrs,
Figaro
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
Hi, Figaro!
Just discovered your website, and it's great!
I was wondering if you've ever read E. W. Bullinger's massive work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. This was my first introduction to chiasmus, epanodos, etc. which are used extensively in the Scriptures (each book is "structured" and "sub-structured" with these patterns).
Bullinger's work "classifies" the figures, gives numerous examples from biblical passages. A great resource.
Thanks, Figaro, for a wonderful website!
Rick
Dear Rick,
Well, I’ve read IN it, certainly, and you’re right: it’s as definitive as any guide on figures can be. Check out the Bullinger website: http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/bullinger/FiguresOfSpeech.html. And thanks for the kind words.
Yrs,
Fig.
[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]
Just discovered your website, and it's great!
I was wondering if you've ever read E. W. Bullinger's massive work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. This was my first introduction to chiasmus, epanodos, etc. which are used extensively in the Scriptures (each book is "structured" and "sub-structured" with these patterns).
Bullinger's work "classifies" the figures, gives numerous examples from biblical passages. A great resource.
Thanks, Figaro, for a wonderful website!
Rick
Dear Rick,
Well, I’ve read IN it, certainly, and you’re right: it’s as definitive as any guide on figures can be. Check out the Bullinger website: http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/bullinger/FiguresOfSpeech.html. And thanks for the kind words.
Yrs,
Fig.
[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
i really like your figures but im a high school student and girls dont like guys with big, uh, vocabularies. i graduate next year tho and hope to get into an ivy league school. think the females will fall for my figures then?
"Frank"
Dear "Frank",
Does putting quotation marks around "Frank" still make you Frank?
As for figures attracting females, I give you Gorgias, a famous Greek Sophist back in the day. (You can call him "Gorgeous.") He once gave a mock defense of babelicous Helen of Troy's infidelity. She was innocent, he said, because her lover "drugged" her with figures of speech and other rhetorical mind-benders.
In short, Homerian babes go for us rhetorical types. So do word-wonky women. Figaro himself has been hit on many times--well, twice--by highly intelligent, beautiful Figaristas.
So do well in your SATs, brush up your chiasmus and anadiplosis. (And capitalize your I's. Women like fully grown egos.) Do exactly as Figaro says and the chromosomally endowed will beat a path to your dormitory door.
Yrs,
Figaro
P.S. Also pre-order my book. It's full of seduction.