Correct Usage of Anthropomorphism

[materialgirl]

Hello all,

I am new to this form so please be gentle :smilewinkgrin:

I'm in the middle of writing an article and am wondering if I am using the word "anthropomorphism" in the right context. Here's the paragraph

If impossible could take human form it would be a little over a metre tall, weigh about 20 kilos and answer to the name of Eli. He would be seen with his usual hangers-on – the anthropomorphisms of frustration and exhaustion leaving the embodiment of sheer surrender languishing on the couch in an ibuprofen induced haze.

I found this (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51722) thread discussing anthropomorphism but I'm even more confused now. I understand that anthropomorphism (whew - that's a long word to type repeatedly :smile5:) means attributing human characteristics to something not human, but I'm doing the opposite. I am humanizing an actual behaviour - so is anthro...(you know what I mean) the correct word.

I've been playing with using personification or even manifestation instead.

[Calidore]

My understanding has always been #3 in that thread: Anthropomorphism is non-human creatures or things behaving like humans, as seen in countless cartoons. Personification is describing something in humanlike terms, but without actually assigning humanlike thoughts or actions to them. Or, as I've just seen via Merriam-Webster, "representation of a thing or abstraction as a person or by the human form." Which is exactly what you're doing in your paragraph: Manifesting the abstract concept of the impossible in the personification of Eli.

[materialgirl]

Thank you Calidore.
I have changed the article and put "personifications" instead. Not only does anthropomorphism not really fit, but it was pointed out to me that some of the intended audience may not know what it means.