Can a pun be a metaphor and vice-versa?

[julian94]

As I read Romeo and Juliet or the third time to prepare myself for an upcoming test, there are some parts where I have difficulty discerning if it's either a pun or metaphor. Not seeing the difference I annotated them as being of the two figure of speeches.

Here is one of the many passages where I can't find the difference: "What art thou art thou drawn among these heartless hinds?" By Tybalt in Act 1 scene 1 lines 64-65

Heartless means without a male deer to protect them and hinds has two meaning, one being that of a female deer and the other that of female servants.Yes these phrase is certainly using a play on words otherwise known as a pun but the thing is in my opinion this also is a metaphor aimed to insult the Montagues. Indeed heartless makes an allusion to the fact that they are "weak" and "defenceless" compared to the Capulets and "hinds" is obviously a metaphor meant to insult the Montagues as puny and weak (:D).

So what do you think?


Thank you so much and yay my first post in this forum xD.

Pardon for the grammar, I am not a native English speaker and I just actually started learning English literature since this October but having some experience with French literature. I'm 16 BTW.

[MystyrMystyry]

Well you're quite right on both counts - but the expressions metaphor and simile, though similar in meaning, are quite separate

'The sea is an angry dog' is a metaphor; 'the sea is 'like' an angry dog' is a simile

See the difference?

But what you're realy referring to is a hidden euphememism where Shakespeare is writing to convey the pointless similarity between the two parties.

I'm not a literature major so someone else may be able to describe it better

Anyone?

[julian94]

I know very well the difference between a simile and a metaphor. What I was asking for is the distinction between metaphors and puns :).

[MystyrMystyry]

You recall I said I wasn't a litmaj? I was just trying to impart some of what I know (as distinct from what I don't know)

Very few people are likely to respond to your question because it concerns 'grammar' which is no-one's favorite

Anyway, yes. I thought I said yes, a pun can be a metaphor and vice versa.

When you said you'd just started learning English, I thought you meant English from another language, and didn't think that that other language might have the same figures of speech as us, but of course they do. This is just one of the problems of posting on an empty stomach

[julian94]

Sorry! Well I did study English until the age of 10. From eleven onwards we immigrated to Switzerland. For four years I studied in a French school without English as a lesson. So obviously my English started to deteriorate because well it is not the language widely spoken in Switzerland, nor in my home. In 2010 I was switched from that kind of school to an international school where English is the primary language.

[MystyrMystyry]

With ya.

Okay, I said euphemism - a euphemism is a (lessening) metaphor, and the opposite of a hyperbole, a (magnifying) metaphor. There's a thread around and others and I gave some examples on that yesterday

a pebble is a euphemism for a boulder and a boulder hyperbole for a pebble.


'I really need a new television - this one's the size of a postage stamp' (euphemism)

I've told you a million times to clean up your mess!' hyperbole

[LitNetIsGreat]

As I read Romeo and Juliet or the third time to prepare myself for an upcoming test, there are some parts where I have difficulty discerning if it's either a pun or metaphor. Not seeing the difference I annotated them as being of the two figure of speeches.

Here is one of the many passages where I can't find the difference: "What art thou art thou drawn among these heartless hinds?" By Tybalt at Act 1 scene 1 lines 64-65

Heartless means without a male deer to protect them and hinds has two meaning, one being that of a female deer and the other that of female servants.Yes these phrase is certainly using a play on words otherwise known as a pun but the thing is in my opinion this also is a metaphor aimed to insult the Montagues. Indeed heartless makes an allusion to the fact that they are "weak" and "defenceless" compared to the Capulets and "hinds" is obviously a metaphor meant to insult the Montagues as puny and weak (:D).

So what do you think?


Thank you so much and yay my first post in this forum xD.

Pardon for the grammar, I am not a native English speaker and I just actually started learning English literature since this October but having some experience with the French literature. I'm 16 BTW.

In short yes you can have a pun and a metaphor. Your passage is fine, very good in fact. Just note the variation in spelling between "hart less" = without a male deer, and heartless= without heart, meaning in this context bravery.

You will find a huge amount of wordplay in Romeo and Juliet, well in Shakespeare in general, but certainly there is a lot of it going on in this work, it was very popular at the time.

Well done, and as a 16 year old non-native speaker wow!

[kasie]

Strictly speaking, the opposite of hyperbole (overstatement) is litotes (understatement), often used ironically - eg: I didn't half like it meaning I liked it very much indeed.

Euphemism is using a vague or better-sounding word as a substitute for a harsher or possibly impolite word - eg: He has gone to a better place or even He has passed away instead of the balder statement He is dead. Think of the 'delicate' ways of saying 'I need to empty my bladder' or of the many, many ways of describing sex!

I agree that the line from R & J given as an example is both a pun and a metaphor, the pun being 'heartless' which sounds like 'hartless' in conjunction with 'hinds'. Tybalt, never one to mince his words, is in effect saying 'Are you one of these cowardly (heartless, without 'heart', spirit or courage) menials (servants, and female at that), you are like a troupe of women without a strong leader', a deadly insult. All those words and Shakespeare says it in two!

Sorry, Neely, I didn't see your earlier post!

[MarkBastable]

Very few people are likely to respond to your question because it concerns 'grammar' which is no-one's favorite


The question isn't about grammar - which concerns itself with the structure of language, regardless of meaning. The question's about literary terminology and usage - regardless of structure.

And, by the way, not everyone shies away from questions of grammar. For a serious writer, to avoid understanding grammar would be like a jockey not wishing to learn anything about the behaviour of horses.

[MystyrMystyry]

See the attention MystyrMystyry draws - and only the best!

[JBI]

As I read Romeo and Juliet or the third time to prepare myself for an upcoming test, there are some parts where I have difficulty discerning if it's either a pun or metaphor. Not seeing the difference I annotated them as being of the two figure of speeches.

Here is one of the many passages where I can't find the difference: "What art thou art thou drawn among these heartless hinds?" By Tybalt at Act 1 scene 1 lines 64-65

Heartless means without a male deer to protect them and hinds has two meaning, one being that of a female deer and the other that of female servants.Yes these phrase is certainly using a play on words otherwise known as a pun but the thing is in my opinion this also is a metaphor aimed to insult the Montagues. Indeed heartless makes an allusion to the fact that they are "weak" and "defenceless" compared to the Capulets and "hinds" is obviously a metaphor meant to insult the Montagues as puny and weak (:D).

So what do you think?


Thank you so much and yay my first post in this forum xD.

Pardon for the grammar, I am not a native English speaker and I just actually started learning English literature since this October but having some experience with the French literature. I'm 16 BTW.

there is also a pun hon drawn as in, drawing a sword, and drawing as in genetics - are you of the family of this - a blood thing. It functions as a multi-layered metaphor as well as a multiple pun.

[julian94]

In short yes you can have a pun and a metaphor. Your passage is fine, very good in fact. Just note the variation in spelling between "hart less" = without a male deer, and heartless= without heart, meaning in this context bravery.

You will find a huge amount of wordplay in Romeo and Juliet, well in Shakespeare in general, but certainly there is a lot of it going on in this work, it was very popular at the time.

Well done, and as a 16 year old non-native speaker wow!

For the heartless part I almost fell into the trap of perceiving it literally but then thought that it did not make any sense with what is happening in that scene whatsoever.

Aside that, thank you :)! Dictionary is my best friend, without it I would not have known the definition of "hind".

[hanzklein]

A pun is a pun, not a metaphor. Because the word can be interpreted in two ways, you can not say it is a metaphor because the other meaning is probably not a metaphor. Because this is apparently a test, you should not say that a pun is a metaphor, even if it appears to be, because a teacher can mark it wrong.

Also, becareful what you're identifying as a pun is an actual pun. Unless you are told it is such by a teacher or academic source, you should not make your own conclusions, as Shakespeare's verbiage can lead to seeing things that aren't there.

[Seasider]

A pun can be included in a metaphor but as Hanzklein says it is a separate entity. It is a play on words and very beloved by native English speakers. Here is an old pun which many readers of this forum will know and groan at...but since you are only 16 I am hoping you haven't heard it before. Oscar Wilde once said he could make a pun on any subject. A friend challenged him to make a pun about Queen Victoria. "Impossible." said Oscar "She's no subject."

[julian94]

Strictly speaking, the opposite of hyperbole (overstatement) is litotes (understatement), often used ironically - eg: I didn't half like it meaning I liked it very much indeed.

Euphemism is using a vague or better-sounding word as a substitute for a harsher or possibly impolite word - eg: He has gone to a better place or even He has passed away instead of the balder statement He is dead. Think of the 'delicate' ways of saying 'I need to empty my bladder' or of the many, many ways of describing sex!

I agree that the line from R & J given as an example is both a pun and a metaphor, the pun being 'heartless' which sounds like 'hartless' in conjunction with 'hinds'. Tybalt, never one to mince his words, is in effect saying 'Are you one of these cowardly (heartless, without 'heart', spirit or courage) menials (servants, and female at that), you are like a troupe of women without a strong leader', a deadly insult. All those words and Shakespeare says it in two!

Sorry, Neely, I didn't see your earlier post!
Forgot to thank you! This is as useful as Neely's

A pun is a pun, not a metaphor. Because the word can be interpreted in two ways, you can not say it is a metaphor because the other meaning is probably not a metaphor. Because this is apparently a test, you should not say that a pun is a metaphor, even if it appears to be, because a teacher can mark it wrong.

Also, becareful what you're identifying as a pun is an actual pun. Unless you are told it is such by a teacher or academic source, you should not make your own conclusions, as Shakespeare's verbiage can lead to seeing things that aren't there.
My school actually encourages critical thinking so I think there is no such passage that has to be "academically approved". Moreover I was referring to the whole passage as both being a pun and a metaphor, not just referring on a single word. Finally when you say the other meaning not being a metaphor, what do you mean by that? I mean many words can be interpreted as being metaphorical albeit just on one of its definition, not on its every definition. Indeed, isn't a metaphor a figure of speech that relies on the culture during that time and to a certain extent on the reader's general knowledge?

A pun can be included in a metaphor but as Hanzklein says it is a separate entity. It is a play on words and very beloved by native English speakers. Here is an old pun which many readers of this forum will know and groan at...but since you are only 16 I am hoping you haven't heard it before. Oscar Wilde once said he could make a pun on any subject. A friend challenged him to make a pun about Queen Victoria. "Impossible." said Oscar "She's no subject."
Hahaha, read the picture of Dorian Gray, which is arguably his most known work today.The book is so well-written, a great food for thought and actually taught me how to think outside the box.

[MystyrMystyry]

Strictly speaking, the opposite of hyperbole (overstatement) is litotes (understatement), often used ironically


Thanks for the reminder, Kas. I hadn't used that word since 82/3, and because of the other thread about hyperbole/euphemism I just let myself use it sloppily, knowing it was the wrong'un. This was bad of me and I'll go stand in the corner


But back to the pun thing - English is elastic, constantly evolving (and frequently devolving), but because Shakespeare is considered its father (because he is?) pedants place him high upon a pedestal. He possessed an unmatched vocabulary and really had a lot of fun with it, coming up with tropes like magic

But when he came up with heartless hinds I don't think he said to himself 'what I really need here is a pun and a metaphor at the same time, hmmm, what can it be?'

Though he may've thought afterwards 'Gee whiz, but I'm clever sod!'

[JBI]

A pun is a pun, not a metaphor. Because the word can be interpreted in two ways, you can not say it is a metaphor because the other meaning is probably not a metaphor. Because this is apparently a test, you should not say that a pun is a metaphor, even if it appears to be, because a teacher can mark it wrong.

Also, becareful what you're identifying as a pun is an actual pun. Unless you are told it is such by a teacher or academic source, you should not make your own conclusions, as Shakespeare's verbiage can lead to seeing things that aren't there.

That is obviously a pun, however, if you read it, in all possible interpretations, meaning all meanings, all 6, they all function as metaphors. One can pun on a metaphor - the metaphor is that Tybalt is comparing Benvolio (I think) being Drawn - born, standing with his sword out, amongst those heartless - weak, cowardly, also male deer-less, hinds, meaning female deers, or, those in the back, bottom ones, females.

SO, you have 6 possible interpretations, a1+b1+c1, a1+b1+c2, etc. The question here is though, are those not all metaphorical? there is an implicit comparison in all of them. There is no doubt a metaphor embedded in every possible interpretation of the line, something Shakespeare's upper class patrons would notice (lets say young schoolboys from Oxford or whatever) and thus relish upon. These lines were written in a culture used to picking up such wordplay, something which the generations that followed him disliked greatly (Johnson I believe referred to them as Shakespeare's quibbles or something like that in a distasteful manner). IF I recall, Pope also axed them in his Shakespeare, and the generations that followed - the romantics, and Victorians, they weren't really too into wordplay themselves. The first generation to really reevaluate such work in English would seem to be Modernists, notably Pound and Joyce who took fun with the pun, and made it an art form again.

That being said, this is still a metaphor.

[julian94]

That is obviously a pun, however, if you read it, in all possible interpretations, meaning all meanings, all 6, they all function as metaphors. One can pun on a metaphor - the metaphor is that Tybalt is comparing Benvolio (I think) being Drawn - born, standing with his sword out, amongst those heartless - weak, cowardly, also male deer-less, hinds, meaning female deers, or, those in the back, bottom ones, females.

SO, you have 6 possible interpretations, a1+b1+c1, a1+b1+c2, etc. The question here is though, are those not all metaphorical? there is an implicit comparison in all of them. There is no doubt a metaphor embedded in every possible interpretation of the line, something Shakespeare's upper class patrons would notice (lets say young schoolboys from Oxford or whatever) and thus relish upon. These lines were written in a culture used to picking up such wordplay, something which the generations that followed him disliked greatly (Johnson I believe referred to them as Shakespeare's quibbles or something like that in a distasteful manner). IF I recall, Pope also axed them in his Shakespeare, and the generations that followed - the romantics, and Victorians, they weren't really too into wordplay themselves. The first generation to really reevaluate such work in English would seem to be Modernists, notably Pound and Joyce who took fun with the pun, and made it an art form again.

That being said, this is still a metaphor.
Lol ok so Shakespeare's works were once hated... So how did we come to like it again then?
Also thank you for connoting that drawn is also a 'metaphorical pun' I completely ingnored that one.

However when you said the genetics part, sorry but I beg to differ. Instead of thinking to be part of them, isn't it instead of being attracted to them? As if the Capulets wanted to be one of them? I don't know though :/.

[MystyrMystyry]

His works never went completely out - people still studied them, famous actors still performed them, and parts featured in anthologies of poetry - because they are poems, and poetry has never gone out of fashion amongst the people who love poetry (nutty fruitcakes as they may be).

There's a load of negative criticism about his works, but I've never found a critic who could write anywhere near as well (I suspect jealousy as the motivation)

[julian94]

His works never went completely out - people still studied them, famous actors still performed them, and parts featured in anthologies of poetry - because they are poems, and poetry has never gone out of fashion amongst the people who love poetry (nutty fruitcakes as they may be).

There's a load of negative criticism about his works, but I've never found a critic who could write anywhere near as well (I suspect jealousy as the motivation)

I remember once in a forum there were people saying that Shakespeare did not write ANY of his plays xP.

[Seasider]

I remember once in a forum there were people saying that Shakespeare did not write ANY of his plays xP.

Quite right. It was another man with the same name!!:D

If I read JBI correctly I think he says that it was Shakespeare's love of puns and similar wordplay that Johnson, Pope et al. found distasteful. In fact puns etc are found more frequently in the earlier plays. If the only play of Shakespeare I had seen or read had been "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" I might have agreed with the good Doctor.

[OrphanPip]

Quite right. It was another man with the same name!!:D

If I read JBI correctly I think he says that it was Shakespeare's love of puns and similar wordplay that Johnson, Pope et al. found distasteful. In fact puns etc are found more frequently in the earlier plays. If the only play of Shakespeare I had seen or read had been "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" I might have agreed with the good Doctor.

It was also fashionable to rewrite Shakespeare up until the end of the 19th century. Apparently, a number of rewritten versions of King Lear with happy endings were quite popular. There's also Dryden's gutted version of the Tempest, which was apparently the more popular version up until the 19th century.

[hanzklein]

That is obviously a pun, however, if you read it, in all possible interpretations, meaning all meanings, all 6, they all function as metaphors. One can pun on a metaphor - the metaphor is that Tybalt is comparing Benvolio (I think) being Drawn - born, standing with his sword out, amongst those heartless - weak, cowardly, also male deer-less, hinds, meaning female deers, or, those in the back, bottom ones, females.

SO, you have 6 possible interpretations, a1+b1+c1, a1+b1+c2, etc. The question here is though, are those not all metaphorical? there is an implicit comparison in all of them. There is no doubt a metaphor embedded in every possible interpretation of the line, something Shakespeare's upper class patrons would notice (lets say young schoolboys from Oxford or whatever) and thus relish upon. These lines were written in a culture used to picking up such wordplay, something which the generations that followed him disliked greatly (Johnson I believe referred to them as Shakespeare's quibbles or something like that in a distasteful manner). IF I recall, Pope also axed them in his Shakespeare, and the generations that followed - the romantics, and Victorians, they weren't really too into wordplay themselves. The first generation to really reevaluate such work in English would seem to be Modernists, notably Pound and Joyce who took fun with the pun, and made it an art form again.

That being said, this is still a metaphor.
That is arguable, I just googled 'is a pun a metaphor' and this thread came up as one of the top results, so we're the only people even debating about this apparently.

julian94 said he has a 'test' on this, if he is given a question about the phrase about heartless hinds, is he going to mark that it's a metaphor and a pun? Just a metaphor? The correct thing to do would be to mark it only as a pun to not cause complications. If he does say it's a metaphor and a pun, he could very likely lose points

[Seasider]

Heartless is ambiguous too. It can mean as has been suggested without heart, thus lacking courage. Or it could mean without heart,thus lacking compassion.

[JBI]

Heartless is ambiguous too. It can mean as has been suggested without heart, thus lacking courage. Or it could mean without heart,thus lacking compassion.

not in context. Compassion isn't considered something Tybalt would like - calling them devoid of compassion in his sentence would imply a compliment, or at least not fit with the rest as he playing them down as feminine/weak.

[JBI]

His works never went completely out - people still studied them, famous actors still performed them, and parts featured in anthologies of poetry - because they are poems, and poetry has never gone out of fashion amongst the people who love poetry (nutty fruitcakes as they may be).

There's a load of negative criticism about his works, but I've never found a critic who could write anywhere near as well (I suspect jealousy as the motivation)

I meant the appreciation of puns, not of Shakespeare...

Which is true, the pun went out of fashion for a good 300 odd years as a major trope.

[MystyrMystyry]

Puns out of fashion? Outrageous! Without puns I'd barely be seen to have a sense of humour at all. What were these people - a bunch of wackers? Surely there must have been out of vogue rebels and rogues to keep up the tradition

Perhaps they've been forgotten in favour of dry-as-dust Dryden, no-hope Alexander Pope, Borin' Lord Byron, Brown Browning, and all the other fashionable fiends hiding behind their Lauriation and Major Poet status.

I remember history gave each and every a come-uppance, possibly the best was that they are largely unread

Slavish fashion followers! Beep! Beep!