I wanted to ask my friend if he thought the coronavirus would be contained or . . . and I couldn't think of any way to describe the alternative. So I asked he thought it would go viral.
Going viral is a metaphor, originally based on viruses but I think now having a meaning of its own. I'm not even sure how well the new meaning applies to viruses. In any case, it was odd to have the metaphor take a journey and end up where it started.
Is this commmon?
Someone wanted to tell a lie (or something bad) about a political opponent, but he didn't want to be known as the source, so he told it to someone else who reported it. So, using the metaphor of moneylaundering, which has taken on a life of it's own, the person descrbing this transaction described it as laundering lies. But any bad information about an opponent is called dirt, so the reporter, with no obvious sense of irony, described it as laundering dirt.
Or maybe it's just odd where metaphors can end up.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
A good reason for writers to come up with their own metaphors.
Also, consider that a "viral" metaphor is almost cliche.
And isn't "laundering dirt" a mixed metaphor (since "dirt" as used in the example is already a metaphor)?
Posted by EmmaSohan (Member # 10917) on :
I was comparing pointing with a finger versus pointing with a stick. Pointing with a stick is more accurate, a finger is better for up close, you might not be able to find a stick while fingers are always on hand.
Maybe they should be called unmixed metaphors? I didn't even know "on hand" was a metaphor until I realized what I was saying.
(I know, the topic is dead, but still . . . )
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Congrats on recognizing that "on hand" was a figure of speech. I think being able to do that is a very important skill writers should develop. Until we really pay attention to the things we say (or think) automatically and unconsciously, we won't have true control over our words.