We are discussing a metaphor reported in the NYT:
“A guy commenting on receiving a life sentence for participating in [a] coup
says [as per below.]”
“I did not expect a fair trial. Words don’t mean anything here. We are just the
grass that elephants trampled on during their fight.”
McEvoy comments:
“If you were involved in a coup, it seems to me you were more active than the
grass underneath two elephants. It’s a convenient downgrading of
responsibility. The fairness of trials is another matter.”
I agree.
“We are just the grass that elephants trampled on during their fight.”
I believe Ritchie is wondering about the nature of the metaphor here. The
‘just’ is for effect, and may be eliminated. We have the opposite of
‘personification’ here. To personify is to try grass as human, and an elephant
as human. The utterer is doing just the opposite. There must be a name for this
figure of speech. The fact that there are THREE sub-utterances conjoined here
makes it for a more complicated case. The first and the second are not
metaphorical. The full interpretation of the third utterance, which is the
metaphor, becomes complex as to whether it has to be related to the two
previous sub-utterances. Which is back to Grice’s elephant. Or not.
Cheers,
Speranza
