meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> huh????? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > typical a-typical mid life crisis
> > >
>
>
> it's certainly a typical mid life crisis as he's
> just having a mid life crisis about where he is in
> life but he goes about it in a very weird way.
>
> sorry if i wasn't clear enough for your potato
> brain
>
>



Your the retard typing "typical a-typical" which is the equivalent of a double negative, pea brain.

"ratard" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > huh????? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > meh Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > typical a-typical mid life crisis
> > > >
> >
> >
> > it's certainly a typical mid life crisis as
> he's
> > just having a mid life crisis about where he is
> in
> > life but he goes about it in a very weird way.
> >
> > sorry if i wasn't clear enough for your potato
> > brain
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Your the retard typing "typical a-typical" which
> is the equivalent of a double negative, pea brain.


a double negative negates itself, this contradicts itself

not really similar...

< that is you

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "ratard" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > huh????? Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > meh Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > > typical a-typical mid life crisis
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > it's certainly a typical mid life crisis as
> > he's
> > > just having a mid life crisis about where he
> is
> > in
> > > life but he goes about it in a very weird
> way.
> > >
> > > sorry if i wasn't clear enough for your
> potato
> > > brain
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your the retard typing "typical a-typical"
> which
> > is the equivalent of a double negative, pea
> brain.
>
>
> a double negative negates itself, this contradicts
> itself
>
> not really similar...
>
> < that is you


When you use a double negative, you imply the positive, or the opposite. When you typed "typical a-typical," you implied the opposite of "a-typical" ( as in typical)...it is the same thing, moron.


vvvv You vvvvv
Attachments:

> When you use a double negative, you imply the
> positive, or the opposite. When you typed "typical
> a-typical," you implied the opposite of
> "a-typical" ( as in typical)...it is the same
> thing, moron.
>
>

lol what a fine linguist we have here

" im not doing badly" means i'm doing well

"inability to pay attention is a typical atypical behavior" means "though his behavior is not that of the norm, it is typical for some children to have problems paying attention"

go to school kid

next you're going to tell if i describe an object as being blue and yellow that i really should be calling it green

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> " im not doing badly" means i'm doing well
>
>


That's not a double negative. "I'm non not going" is a double negative.


When is your summer vacation over? You should have taken remedial English in summer school, retard.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "inability to pay attention is a typical atypical
> behavior" means "though his behavior is not that
> of the norm, it is typical for some children to
> have problems paying attention"
>
>


Something that isn't the norm can't be typical. What you are doing is called "double speak" or "back pedaling."

u r the biggest idiot, meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > "inability to pay attention is a typical
> atypical
> > behavior" means "though his behavior is not
> that
> > of the norm, it is typical for some children to
> > have problems paying attention"
> >
> >
>
>
> Something that isn't the norm can't be typical.
> What you are doing is called "double speak" or
> "back pedaling."


...or being a retarded troll.

What you are doing is denial.

Typical means "to be representative of a group"

atypical means "to be not representative of a group"

So if we look at the group of men having mid life crises, we see a majority handle it in one fashion. However, another group handles it poorly. This other group would be called atypical because the the way they handle it does not represent the group as a whole. But, a majority of the men who handle it atypically handle it in the same fashion. So those men in the majority of the atypical group would be representative of their atypical group.

These men are typical atypical. They are representative of a smaller group of men who do not represent the larger group of men.


I cannot explain it in a more basic fashion, either you understand it or you don't. But just because you do not understand something does not make someone else wrong.

In mehspeak, I don't not understand what you are saying, it's just you are a complete moron...die already!





meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you are doing is denial.
>
> Typical means "to be representative of a group"
>
> atypical means "to be not representative of a
> group"
>
> So if we look at the group of men having mid life
> crises, we see a majority handle it in one
> fashion. However, another group handles it poorly.
> This other group would be called atypical because
> the the way they handle it does not represent the
> group as a whole. But, a majority of the men who
> handle it atypically handle it in the same
> fashion. So those men in the majority of the
> atypical group would be representative of their
> atypical group.
>
> These men are typical atypical. They are
> representative of a smaller group of men who do
> not represent the larger group of men.
>
>
> I cannot explain it in a more basic fashion,
> either you understand it or you don't. But just
> because you do not understand something does not
> make someone else wrong.

> next you're going to tell if i describe an object
> as being blue and yellow that i really should be
> calling it green

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you are doing is denial.
>
> Typical means "to be representative of a group"
>
> atypical means "to be not representative of a
> group"
>
> So if we look at the group of men having mid life
> crises, we see a majority handle it in one
> fashion. However, another group handles it poorly.
> This other group would be called atypical because
> the the way they handle it does not represent the
> group as a whole. But, a majority of the men who
> handle it atypically handle it in the same
> fashion. So those men in the majority of the
> atypical group would be representative of their
> atypical group.
>
> These men are typical atypical. They are
> representative of a smaller group of men who do
> not represent the larger group of men.
>
>
> I cannot explain it in a more basic fashion,
> either you understand it or you don't. But just
> because you do not understand something does not
> make someone else wrong.
Attachments:

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > next you're going to tell if i describe an
> object
> > as being blue and yellow that i really should
> be
> > calling it green
Attachments:

maybe your potato brain can't comprehend that metaphor either. oh well

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe your potato brain can't comprehend that
> metaphor either. oh well


That's the worst metaphor ever.

take your lipstick off, pig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > maybe your potato brain can't comprehend that
> > metaphor either. oh well
>
>
> That's the worst metaphor ever.


Why? It accurately describes how you ( or other anon) perceives two adjectives to be modifying each other rather than two different sections of a whole. Such as, if the blue and yellow were modifying each other (i.e mixed together) it would be green, but they aren't.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> take your lipstick off, pig Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > maybe your potato brain can't comprehend that
> > > metaphor either. oh well
> >
> >
> > That's the worst metaphor ever.
>
>
> Why? It accurately describes how you ( or other
> anon) perceives two adjectives to be modifying
> each other rather than two different sections of a
> whole. Such as, if the blue and yellow were
> modifying each other (i.e mixed together) it would
> be green, but they aren't.


No, calling you a pig and telling you to take your lipstick off is a metaphor; yours is not.


Metaphor: A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.


Where is the commonality in your example? lol


BTW, genius, what kind of literary device is being used in the following phrase: "The sun is smiling?"

But you agreed it was a metaphor by claiming it "[was] the worst metaphor ever"

So is it or isn't it? You're contradicting yourself.

Calling me a pig is an ad hominem attack. And to put "lipstick on a pig" is a rhetorical expression, used to convey the message that making superficial or cosmetic changes is a futile attempt to disguise the true nature of a product.

So, while it's a rhetorical expression, it's not a metaphor. I guess I made a mistake in calling it a metaphor, my bad. I haven't actively studied English in years, and I don't claim to be an English scholar either. Can you own up to your own mistakes?


And it's either anthropomorphism or personification. I believe they mean the same thing.


I was just trying to help clear up any misunderstandings you had with my word choice, though at the time it didn't seem like it was going to be very hard to comprehend. Also I believe this metaphor tangent is a red herring on your part, trying to drag the discussion away from what it was initially about.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But you agreed it was a metaphor by claiming it "
> the worst metaphor ever"
>
> So is it or isn't it? You're contradicting
> yourself.


Yours was not an example of a metaphor. Mine was, because I was making a comparison between your backpedaling and the the putting of lipstick on the pig. The commonality between the two is, that no matter how much you backpedal or "dress up" your argument (like lipstick on a pig), it's still the same as it was before...WRONG!

Had I said, "If you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a pig?" that would have been a rhetorical question. However, I was not asking a question, but rather, using the imagery of the pig as a metaphor to express the fact that, no matter the amount of backpedaling on your part, you were and still are wrong.



> Calling me a pig is an ad hominem attack. And to
> put "lipstick on a pig" is a rhetorical
> expression, used to convey the message that making
> superficial or cosmetic changes is a futile
> attempt to disguise the true nature of a product.
>
> So, while it's a rhetorical expression, it's not a
> metaphor. I guess I made a mistake in calling it a
> metaphor, my bad. I haven't actively studied
> English in years, and I don't claim to be an
> English scholar either. Can you own up to your own
> mistakes?


See above.


> And it's either anthropomorphism or
> personification. I believe they mean the same
> thing.


No, they don't. Anthropomorphism involves the attribution of human characteristics to animals.


Personification involves the attribution of a personal nature or character to inanimate objects or abstract notions ( i.e. You are the personification of irony).

There's a difference, dummy (damn, you are clueless)! lol


> I was just trying to help clear up any
> misunderstandings you had with my word choice,
> though at the time it didn't seem like it was
> going to be very hard to comprehend. Also I
> believe this metaphor tangent is a red herring on
> your part, trying to drag the discussion away from
> what it was initially about.


You still haven't answered what kind of literary device is being used in the phrase, "The sun is smiling."


I guess you are too stupid to know the answer! haha

ITT: Things that are not relevant to things I care about.



Go be an English teacher at a high school, have fun with it.

I'll have fun with doing what I do ;)

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I'll have fun with doing what I do ;)
Attachments:

i like how you go through the trouble of downloading every picture you need.

newfags cant put images in the body of their text

seriously professor, what are you going to do with your english degree?

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i like how you go through the trouble of
> downloading every picture you need.
>
> newfags cant put images in the body of their text
Attachments:

i am genuinely curious as to what you are going to do with your english degree.

one of my friends got her english degree, her first job was writing quips for a calendar

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> seriously professor, what are you going to do with
> your english degree?



Quit deflecting and answer the question, or are you too stupid to do so?

but she also once had a firetruck dispatched to her residence because she feel asleep with a hotpot on and it set off the smoke alarms somehow

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but she also once had a firetruck dispatched to
> her residence because she feel asleep with a
> hotpot on and it set off the smoke alarms somehow


At least she knows what type of literary device is being used in the phrase "the sun is smiling" (unlike you)! "lmao"

and she liked tripping off of cough syrup, though i cant say i supported her in doing so. it did result in some odd/funny conversations. she told me i had a blue aura or sometimes it was yellow

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and she liked tripping off of cough syrup, though
> i cant say i supported her in doing so. it did
> result in some odd/funny conversations. she told
> me i had a blue aura or sometimes it was yellow



Are you sure it wasn't green? :)

meh, hot or not?




-
Attachments:

i already answered bub

personification


http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-personification.html

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh, hot or not?
>
>
>
>
> -


fag

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh, hot or not?
>
>
>
>
> -

dont know if i approve of the mullet forming

unless he's a laxbro then thats some sick flow in the making

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i already answered bub
>
> personification
>
>
> http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-per
> sonification.html


This coming from the guy who thought anthropomorphism and personification were the same thing. Sorry, but no, the literary device in the phrase "The sun is smiling" is a simile.


You're not to bright, are you?

*too*

wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i already answered bub
> >
> > personification
> >
> >
> >
> http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-per
>
> > sonification.html
>
>
> This coming from the guy who thought
> anthropomorphism and personification were the same
> thing. Sorry, but no, the literary device in the
> phrase "The sun is smiling" is a simile.
>
>
> You're not to bright, are you?


holy shit fucks, you truly are an idiot.

A simile is a figure of speech that directly compares two different things, usually by employing the words "like" or "as".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile


Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personification


my face when ^





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 03:28AM by meh.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

> Anthropomorphism or personification is any
> attribution of human characteristics (or
> characteristics assumed to belong only to humans)
> to other animals, non-living things, phenomena,
> material states, objects or abstract concepts,
> such as organizations, governments, spirits or
> deities.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personification



Anthropomorphism involves the attribution of human characteristics to animals.


Personification involves the attribution of a personal nature or character to inanimate objects or abstract notions ( i.e. You are the personification of irony).

wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> > Anthropomorphism or personification is any
> > attribution of human characteristics (or
> > characteristics assumed to belong only to
> humans)
> > to other animals, non-living things, phenomena,
> > material states, objects or abstract concepts,
> > such as organizations, governments, spirits or
> > deities.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personification
>
>
>
> Anthropomorphism involves the attribution of human
> characteristics to animals.
>
>
> Personification involves the attribution of a
> personal nature or character to inanimate objects
> or abstract notions ( i.e. You are the
> personification of irony).

you are so deep into your denial that you would go against the standard definition of personification.

er no it's not objectification, that's still not right.


you calling me the personification of irony is calling irony a human, thus personifying it. you confused yourself hahahaha



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 03:39AM by meh.

The sun is smiling is an example of personification...you were right and I made a slip. "What are you, an English teacher?" "lmao"



However, there is a difference between Anthropomorphism (animals) and personification (inanimate objects). There you were and still are incorrect.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>


Did you learn everything you know from wikipedia? "lmao"
Attachments:

I fucked up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sun is smiling is an example of
> personification...you were right and I made a
> slip. "What are you, an English teacher?" "lmao"
>
>
>
> However, there is a difference between
> Anthropomorphism (animals) and personification
> (inanimate objects). There you were and still are
> incorrect.


I said "either...or" implying it could be one or both, but not stating for a fact that it would be either or both. So, I wasn't entirely wrong.

you don't know shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
>
> Did you learn everything you know from wikipedia?
> "lmao"


I guess it is better than learning from you.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> you calling me the personification of irony is
> calling irony a human, thus personifying it.



Exactly, Stimpy! Personification is the humanization of inanimate objects and abstract ideas/notions, idiot ( Irony is the idea/notion).

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I fucked up Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The sun is smiling is an example of
> > personification...you were right and I made a
> > slip. "What are you, an English teacher?"
> "lmao"
> >
> >
> >
> > However, there is a difference between
> > Anthropomorphism (animals) and personification
> > (inanimate objects). There you were and still
> are
> > incorrect.
>
>
> I said "either...or" implying it could be one or
> both, but not stating for a fact that it would be
> either or both. So, I wasn't entirely wrong.


No, you didn't...and don't go back and edit it like you did with your "objectification' foot in mouth response! lol

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I fucked up Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The sun is smiling is an example of
> > personification...you were right and I made a
> > slip. "What are you, an English teacher?"
> "lmao"
> >
> >
> >
> > However, there is a difference between
> > Anthropomorphism (animals) and personification
> > (inanimate objects). There you were and still
> are
> > incorrect.
>
>
> I said "either...or" implying it could be one or
> both, but not stating for a fact that it would be
> either or both. So, I wasn't entirely wrong.


You were and still are wrong, idiot.

shoulda registered bro

dumbass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I fucked up Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The sun is smiling is an example of
> > > personification...you were right and I made a
> > > slip. "What are you, an English teacher?"
> > "lmao"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, there is a difference between
> > > Anthropomorphism (animals) and
> personification
> > > (inanimate objects). There you were and still
> > are
> > > incorrect.
> >
> >
> > I said "either...or" implying it could be one
> or
> > both, but not stating for a fact that it would
> be
> > either or both. So, I wasn't entirely wrong.
>
>
> You were and still are wrong, idiot.


what, exactly, was i wrong about?

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> er no it's not objectification, that's still not
> right.



Nice edit, idiot!lol



> you calling me the personification of irony is
> calling irony a human, thus personifying it. you
> confused yourself hahahaha


You're the one who is confused about the difference between anthropomorphism, personification, and objectification! haha

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> what, exactly, was i wrong about?




lmao
Attachments:

meh Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > what, exactly, was i wrong about?



Personification, anthropomorphism, and objectification, genius! lol

Stimpy, you idiot! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > er no it's not objectification, that's still
> not
> > right.
>
>
>
> Nice edit, idiot!lol
>
>
>
> > you calling me the personification of irony is
> > calling irony a human, thus personifying it.
> you
> > confused yourself hahahaha
>
>
> You're the one who is confused about the
> difference between anthropomorphism,
> personification, and objectification! haha


No. I'm not. But you (or other anon) is.

Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

The term derives from the combination of the Greek (anthropos), "human" and (morphe) "shape" or "form".

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> er no it's not objectification, that's still not
> right.
>
>
> Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 03:39AM by meh.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> what, exactly, was i wrong about?


This:


meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> er no it's not objectification, that's still not
> right.
>
>
> Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 03:39AM by meh.

I think you guys are the one confused, thinking anthropomorphism only applies to animals

this and much more Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > what, exactly, was i wrong about?
>
>
> This:
>
>
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > er no it's not objectification, that's still
> not
> > right.
> >
> >
> > Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012
> 03:39AM by meh.


Yes, I was wrong. That is why I edited it out. I realized I was wrong and made changes to reflect my train of thought. Others however are adamant in their position despite being wrong.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> er no it's not objectification, that's still not
> right.
>
>
> you calling me the personification of irony is
> calling irony a human, thus personifying it. you
> confused yourself hahahaha
Attachments:

Anthropomorphism is a very specific type of personification; personification in general is applying human characteristics to non-human creatures or objects.


Anthropomorphism is giving animals human shapes or body parts. See Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs for the perfect example of anthropomorphism.


Furry fandom is also an example of anthropomorphism.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Others however are adamant in
> their position despite being wrong.


I was confused about "simile" and admitted my mistake. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit you were wrong about the earlier shit.

Or, do you think it was objectification because you are saying that I am wrong in saying "i was wrong" ?


It's like looking over a math test after I've looked over it and pointing out that I got a problem wrong.

tl;dr no shit sherlock

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthropomorphism is a very specific type of
> personification; personification in general is
> applying human characteristics to non-human
> creatures or objects.
>
>
> Anthropomorphism is giving animals human shapes or
> body parts. See Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs for
> the perfect example of anthropomorphism.
>
>
> Furry fandom is also an example of
> anthropomorphism.


Thank you, that is exactly what I was saying. Meh says they are the same thing and refuses to admit he is wrong and blames everything on wikipedia! lol

u r confused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Others however are adamant in
> > their position despite being wrong.
>
>
> I was confused about "simile" and admitted my
> mistake. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit
> you were wrong about the earlier shit.


This discussion has been going on for awhile, so could you point out at what point I am wrong and refuse to admit it?

the wikipedia defense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anthropomorphism is a very specific type of
> > personification; personification in general is
> > applying human characteristics to non-human
> > creatures or objects.
> >
> >
> > Anthropomorphism is giving animals human shapes
> or
> > body parts. See Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
> for
> > the perfect example of anthropomorphism.
> >
> >
> > Furry fandom is also an example of
> > anthropomorphism.
>
>
> Thank you, that is exactly what I was saying. Meh
> says they are the same thing and refuses to admit
> he is wrong and blames everything on wikipedia!
> lol



They aren't exactly the same thing, but they aren't completely different. Anthropomorphism is personification, but a very specific type.

the wikipedia defense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anthropomorphism is a very specific type of
> > personification; personification in general is
> > applying human characteristics to non-human
> > creatures or objects.
> >
> >
> > Anthropomorphism is giving animals human shapes
> or
> > body parts. See Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
> for
> > the perfect example of anthropomorphism.
> >
> >
> > Furry fandom is also an example of
> > anthropomorphism.
>
>
> Thank you, that is exactly what I was saying. Meh
> says they are the same thing and refuses to admit
> he is wrong and blames everything on wikipedia!
> lol


sourcing and blaming are not equivalent

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> u r confused Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Others however are adamant in
> > > their position despite being wrong.
> >
> >
> > I was confused about "simile" and admitted my
> > mistake. You, on the other hand, refuse to
> admit
> > you were wrong about the earlier shit.
>
>
> This discussion has been going on for awhile, so
> could you point out at what point I am wrong and
> refuse to admit it?


Are you that stupid? You said there is no difference between anthropomorphism and personification. You were and still are wrong ( eesh agrees with me).


Then you confused personification with objectification (another one).

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> They aren't exactly the same thing, but they
> aren't completely different. Anthropomorphism is
> personification, but a very specific type.


However, meh said they were exactly the same and they are not. It's the same thing with simile and metaphor; they may be both metaphors, but they are still distinct from each other and not the same.



What device did I use there, meh? lol

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism

an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics


Apparently, depending on the authority, they can be separated as eesh has done so, or they can be interchangeable.

but no definition of the word explicitly states that anthropomorphism pertains to the personification of animals only.

Put it this way:


All anthropomorphism is personification, but not all personification is anthropomorphism.

Answer the question, meh; what literary device did I use this time?

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but no definition of the word explicitly states
> that anthropomorphism pertains to the
> personification of animals only.





Actually, it does. It is why anthro and morph make up the word. Anthropomorphism is applying human shapes to animals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 04:14AM by eesh.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put it this way:
>
>
> All anthropomorphism is personification, but not
> all personification is anthropomorphism.


I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot agree because I cannot find any sources which say that anthropomorphism is only animals. If you could bring me one source (reputable please) I would love to agree with you.

I would agree with you if you said that anthropomorphism usually pertains to the personification of animals, but I stand by the notion they are interchangeable until proven wrong.

(btw repeating "u r wrong u r wrong lololol idiot u r wrong" is not proving the point)

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put it this way:
>
>
> All anthropomorphism is personification, but not
> all personification is anthropomorphism.


Just like all similes are metaphor, but not all metaphors are similes.

Or, all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders!



What literary device am I using here, meh?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > but no definition of the word explicitly states
> > that anthropomorphism pertains to the
> > personification of animals only.
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, it does. It is why anthro and morph make
> up the word. Anthropomorphism is applying human
> shapes to animals.

anthro means human

for example: anthropology is the study of humans

and morph well that's obviously "shape" or "form"

ie polymorphism

is something that can have many shapes or forms



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 04:18AM by meh.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would agree with you if you said that
> anthropomorphism usually pertains to the
> personification of animals, but I stand by the
> notion they are interchangeable until proven
> wrong.
>
>

You have been proven wrong repeatedly. Anthropomorphism is for the humanization of animals and Personification is for the humanization of inanimate objects, ideas, and abstract notions ( i.e. you being the personification of irony like I said earlier). Both eesh and I are in agreement on this one; admit it, you are incorrect.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually, it does. It is why anthro and morph make
> up the word. Anthropomorphism is applying human
> shapes to animals.


Do you finally get it, meh?

time to admit you are wrong, meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I would agree with you if you said that
> > anthropomorphism usually pertains to the
> > personification of animals, but I stand by the
> > notion they are interchangeable until proven
> > wrong.
> >
> >
>
> You have been proven wrong repeatedly.
> Anthropomorphism is for the humanization of
> animals and Personification is for the
> humanization of inanimate objects, ideas, and
> abstract notions ( i.e. you being the
> personification of irony like I said earlier).
> Both eesh and I are in agreement on this one;
> admit it, you are incorrect.



Source please. Or I will be like Scooter Lehman after seeing a happy black man, absolutely devastated.

I have provided multiple sources saying that they are interchangeable, you all have not brought anything back, aside from your prior knowledge. (see the simile thing if you forget how that goes)

Okay....personification can be abstract, intangible qualities given to objects or creatures.


Anthropomorphism is specifically mixing animal and human features.



-
Attachments:

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > meh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > but no definition of the word explicitly
> states
> > > that anthropomorphism pertains to the
> > > personification of animals only.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, it does. It is why anthro and morph
> make
> > up the word. Anthropomorphism is applying human
> > shapes to animals.
>
> anthro means human
>
> for example: anthropology is the study of humans
>
> and morph well that's obviously "shape" or "form"
>
> ie polymorphism
>
> is something that can have many shapes or forms



You just confirmed what I wrote....

Blessed are the murderous.

you can do it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Actually, it does. It is why anthro and morph
> make
> > up the word. Anthropomorphism is applying human
> > shapes to animals.
>
>
> Do you finally get it, meh?


anthro human moprho shape

where does it say animals?

while it's rare that non living things take the shape of humans (aside from the LSD trip) it does happen.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Apparently, depending on the authority, they can
> be separated as eesh has done so, or they can be
> interchangeable.


No, they are not interchangeable, just like all similes are metaphors, but not all metaphors are similes. They are not interchangeable, because they are not exactly the same like you allege.


What literary device did I use here? "lmao"

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > eesh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > meh Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > but no definition of the word explicitly
> > states
> > > > that anthropomorphism pertains to the
> > > > personification of animals only.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, it does. It is why anthro and morph
> > make
> > > up the word. Anthropomorphism is applying
> human
> > > shapes to animals.
> >
> > anthro means human
> >
> > for example: anthropology is the study of
> humans
> >
> > and morph well that's obviously "shape" or
> "form"
> >
> > ie polymorphism
> >
> > is something that can have many shapes or forms
>
>
>
> You just confirmed what I wrote....


Meh is too stupid to realize the difference and admit he is wrong.

anthropomorphism of an object

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> anthropomorphism of an object


That's personification! :)

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay....personification can be abstract,
> intangible qualities given to objects or
> creatures.
>
>
> Anthropomorphism is specifically mixing animal and
> human features.
>
>
>
> -


I hate to admit, eesh, but I have been in complete accordance with you during this entire discussion.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay....personification can be abstract,
> intangible qualities given to objects or
> creatures.
>
>
> Anthropomorphism is specifically mixing animal and
> human features.
>
>
>
> -


This is what I have been saying the whole time!

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anthropomorphism is giving animals human shapes or
> body parts. See Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs for
> the perfect example of anthropomorphism.
>
>


What about death?



Death certainly not an animal, but he has a human shape.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Anthropomorphism is giving animals human shapes
> or
> > body parts. See Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
> for
> > the perfect example of anthropomorphism.
> >
> >
>
>
> What about death?
>
>
>
> Death certainly not an animal, but he has a human
> shape.


That's an abstract idea and notion taking human like form, so it's personification, idiot.

That would be personification as death is intangible, and you are giving it human qualities.

It just dawned on me, that we have been arguing different points.

You have been arguing the difference between personification and anthropomorphism.

And I have been arguing that you can anthropomorphize objects and ideas.


edit: maybe not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2012 04:39AM by meh.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That would be personification as death is
> intangible, and you are giving it human qualities.


No, I did not give him any qualities. I didn't call him vengeful or wrathful or whatever qualities you want to give him.

I just gave him a human shape.

But, what qualities would you say that the picture gives death?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That would be personification as death is
> intangible, and you are giving it human qualities.


Exactly, eesh, meh is just too stupid to understand the difference; animals taking human form = anthropomorphism....inanimate objects, ideas, and notions becoming humanized = personification.


I have been telling this moron this all fucking night and he is too dumb to comprehend it!

The door knob is not a good definition of anthropomorphism, as the cartoon has living inanimate objects....like the door knob.


Anthropomorphism is specifically animals, living creatures, mixing features with humans, living creatures.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> But, what qualities would you say that the picture
> gives death?


Human like qualities in terms of shape and form, idiot. Death is a concept, notion, and idea. Making it the Grim Reaper is an example of personification, since he is taking on a human like form ( i.e. human like qualities). You are the dumbest person on Earth, meh! :(

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The door knob is not a good definition of
> anthropomorphism, as the cartoon has living
> inanimate objects....like the door knob.
>
>
> Anthropomorphism is specifically animals, living
> creatures, mixing features with humans, living
> creatures.


Again, I would love to agree with you, had you brought ONE (just one to my several) source that says it is exclusively animals. Because you (and the anons) are not a reputable source. But neither am I, so that is why I brought you links that show they both can be applied to objects.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It just dawned on me, that we have been arguing
> different points.
>
> You have been arguing the difference between
> personification and anthropomorphism.
>
> And I have been arguing that you can
> anthropomorphize objects and ideas.
>
>
> edit: maybe not?
Attachments:

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The door knob is not a good definition of
> > anthropomorphism, as the cartoon has living
> > inanimate objects....like the door knob.
> >
> >
> > Anthropomorphism is specifically animals,
> living
> > creatures, mixing features with humans, living
> > creatures.
>
>
> Again, I would love to agree with you, had you
> brought ONE (just one to my several) source that
> says it is exclusively animals. Because you (and
> the anons) are not a reputable source. But neither
> am I, so that is why I brought you links that show
> they both can be applied to objects.


Reputable source? It's called finishing high school and going to college, junior.

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Again, I would love to agree with you, had you
> brought ONE (just one to my several) source that
> says it is exclusively animals. Because you (and
> the anons) are not a reputable source. But neither
> am I, so that is why I brought you links that show
> they both can be applied to objects.



You can't learn literary devices and the differences between them by simply reading the dictionary.