"figuratively" means "not literal ; metaphorically" what was the use of "not bothered" a metaphor for?
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffro
I’m not going to get that deep into analyzing somebody else’s syntax because I think it’s rude but it’s a pretty common colloquialism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonWeichsel @JohnsonJeffro
You were the one who said it was figurative. He never said that. Since you were confident to say that he DID say it figuratively, not that he MIGHT have said it figuratively, I'm asking YOU what YOU say it was a metaphor for Also * how is it rude? * colloquialism meaning what?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffro
You don’t seem to understand what a figure of speech is.pic.twitter.com/uQWLm7G77O
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonWeichsel @JohnsonJeffro
I do in fact understand what a figure of speech is. That's why I asked WHAT WAS MEANT BY IT. So ... can you explain to me what was meant by it ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffro
Why should I say what somebody else meant by their figure of speech? Ask them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonWeichsel @JohnsonJeffro
You were the one who said it WAS a figure of speech. You said that quite confidently. I personally think that he meant it literally, and was just wrong. But you defended it as "figurative", so I'm asking you to clarify: how so?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffro
In normal colloquial English, which you and I speak, when somebody says that somebody who did something “might not have bothered” had something else not happened, they generally mean that had that other thing not happened, the person in question would not have done what he did.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonWeichsel @JohnsonJeffro
ok, I don't think that's figurative or colloquial - I think that's the literal definition of the word. And it's that literal meaning that I am disagreeing with, based on my reading of his autobiography. For reasons I explained above.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffro
ACE wouldn’t have been able to sell all those copies of the hobbit if other people hadn’t created the market and distribution model for paperbacks, just as I wouldn’t be typing this without Jack Dorsey, Steve Jobs, etc. Has nothing to do with Tolkien’s bio.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You've moved the goal posts. The claim was "Tolkien ...may not have bothered without him." It's made quite clear in his autobiography that his interest in writing LOTR had almost nothing to do w commercial gain. So argument about how many copies Ace would sell is irrelevant.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffro
No I am not moving the goal posts. It is how I have always interpreted the figurative statement. You seem to think he meant Tolkien was sitting there, looked up from the book he was reading, and said, “By George, this American bloke has done it. Now I can write my masterpiece!”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JonWeichsel @JohnsonJeffro
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted J. Manfred Weichsel
The original discussion was "would he have done it or not". You are discussing "how many copies would he sell". Different topic.https://twitter.com/JonWeichsel/status/1149774699284619267 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
J. Manfred Weichsel @JonWeichselReplying to @MorlockP @JohnsonJeffroACE wouldn’t have been able to sell all those copies of the hobbit if other people hadn’t created the market and distribution model for paperbacks, just as I wouldn’t be typing this without Jack Dorsey, Steve Jobs, etc. Has nothing to do with Tolkien’s bio.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.