Talk:Personification/Archive 1

Personification vs. Anthropomorphism?[edit]

To me, the 'personification' discussed in this article is better headed as 'anthropomorphism' - ie., it solely discusses the imbuing of human traits onto non-human objects.

In my opinion, 'personification' is more usually used in the opposite sense - ie., imbuing inhuman or abstract ideas onto a person. "Adolf Hitler was evil personified" would be an example of this use. Would it be fair to say that this is the most common usage?

210.236.108.5 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only the "most common" usage; it is, in fact, the correctusage. This page, as it stands, is utterly wrong. Personification is essentially the opposite of what the article says.--Johnny Blackboard (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no because personification is so commonly used that we never notice it, so it is the most common kind of literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.40.198 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence like "‹name› is ‹quality› personified," or equivalently "if ‹quality› were given human form, it would be ‹name›," is not itself an example of personification (imho), it is a metaphoric allusion to the practice of personification. —Tamfang (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Merge or Not to Merge[edit]

For[edit]

I don't know how it's done, but the article on prosopopeia should be merged with this one - they are the same thing with different names.Sills bend 06:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose a merge using merge tags. See Wikipedia:Merge for details. That article also explain how to carry out a merge. I happen to disagree with this proposed merge. Personification is when an inanimite object speaks. Prosopopoeia is when an absent or non-existent person speaks. Tedernst 16:12, 9 November 2005

Thanks for that. I will still make the proposal, if you don't mind. Here is why: M._H._Abrams says, in A Glossary of literary terms, "Another figure related to metaphor is personification, or in the Greek term, prosopopeia." I can supply more references if required.

Of course you're free to do as you like. All I'm saying is that by reading the two articles, it's clear to me that they're two different concepts. That doesn't mean that a larger article might include them both, but they're clearly not the same thing. Maybe they both belong in the metaphor article? Tedernst 23:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The prosopopoeia page has things slightly wrong.Sills bend 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are different concepts (see [1], [2]). Else I wouldn't have made prosopopeia a separate article! ;-) BD2412 T 23:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what's writte on prosopopoeia currently does describe a slightly different concept - the examples and description fit apostrophe (figure of speech) better. The merge is complicated because the description there is not accurate. The sources linked to do both give personification as a synonym of prosopopoeia.Sills bend 23:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem to cast prosopopoeia as a type of personification. For what it's worth, I picked the term up from The Book of Lists #3, in a list of "10 Commonly Used Figures of Speech" (along with such gems as tmesis, anaptyxis, catachresis, and aposiopesis). I suppose a merge would work. BD2412 T 01:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish[edit]

I just did a huge edit on the articel, pretty much completely changing it. This is what I learned it was in Latin class, so I am pretty sure it is right. Articuno1

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthromorphism vs. personification again[edit]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the division of definitions in this article. This articles says "Anthropomorphism is a particular form of personification which gives such traits to tangible objects or natural phenomena." However, according to Anthormorphism: "Subjects for anthropomorphism commonly include animals depicted as creatures with human motivation able to reason and converse." Anthromorphism is a much broader term than simply engaging in human ascribed tasks, and covers a wide variety of things, "including non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts." (ref [3]). This article should be revisited regarding its description of anthromorphism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy and personification[edit]

As I understand personification, could not a living thing represent and idea? For instance in Constitutional Monarchies, often the monarch is considered as the living embodiment of the state. The Spanish consititution of 1978 expressly states that their monarch is a symbol of the enduring unity of the Spanish State. Should not also this be listed in the artical?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]