
RhetFig - raleighm
https://artsresearch.uwaterloo.ca/chiastic/display/
======
xwowsersx
I don't understand what this is. Maybe because I don't know much about
linguistics. Can someone explain what this is? Seems interesting.

~~~
voidhorse
I was confused at first too. It actually has to do with rhetoric, thus the
name, RhetFig, a shortening of « Rhetorical Figure »

Only reason I was able to deduce this was because I have a big book on
rehtoric, anadilopolis is not something that comes up in other contexts, and
it is indeed the proper use of technical terminology to call somethig a scheme
in rhetroic.

Super cool site though! Basically, it associates a rhetorical figure with its
taxonomic classification (in terms of rhetoric), its linguistic associations,
and its conceptual associations. For example anadipolis is repetition of the
same morpheme at the ending position of the word so its associated with two
concepts, repetition and positon. —i think thats waht anadipolisis is anway,
been a while since ive brushed up on it (might be repetition at the start not
the end)

edit: just looked it up, anadipolis is repetition of te end of one clause at
the beginning of the next. (thus the association to repetition and position)

Really neat stuff!

~~~
dandette
Curious, which book of rhetoric is that?

"Rhetorical figures" are more commonly rendered as "figures of speech",
according to Wikipedia. Website seems to be made by people in the English
Language and Literature department of Waterloo, so maybe not linguistics
(which I think of as a soft science) but more like a humanities.

~~~
voidhorse
Here’s the book I was thinking of, Oxford’s encyclopedia of rhetoric:
[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/978019512...](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195125955.001.0001/acref-9780195125955)

The handlist of rhetorical terms, while not as exhaustive has a ton of great
knowledge as well and covers all the key bits:
[https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520273689/a-handlist-of-
rhe...](https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520273689/a-handlist-of-rhetorical-
terms)

And yes, it’s more common to just call these things figures of speech these
days. But rhetoric was a rather sophisticated and complex field of study back
in the day. Its lost its luster and is rarely formally studied these days
expect in very small circles, presumably of politicians and other important
speechifiers.

The latins abd medievals really had developed it into quite the art. They went
so far as to distinguish the speeches sonic effects from its emotional ones,
both of which were seperate from its logical import, and all of which were
controllabe to degrees by the deployment of certain figures.

Technology has made these arts wither in a way as a lot of the impetus for
their practice was driven by the need to keep the memory sharp—its easier to
recall a set of several repetable rythmic figures than a freeform prose speech
wihout fixed patterns—similar techniques were used in the recitation of oral
myths—these days we dont need these “wetware” techniques as much since we have
so many other technological memory supports.

