I have a definion but not the word...

[dsteve54]

Can you tell me a word that describes this situation. I think there is a word for it but I am not sure. Or perhaps this is one instance of something that would be characterized by such a word.

I just cannot think of it, or maybe I never knew of it in the first place

Let us say we have a definition that we are trying to assign a name/moniker to, in order to refer to an entire class of instances or happenings.

But instead of using some general descriptor that truly clarifies what you are trying to define, you use a specific instance of the class as a definition itself, so that in essence, there is no such clarification.

Maybe an example might be: the dictionary definition of "Kleenex" as a genericized term could hypothetically be "Puffs" rather than "a thin piece of paper, that blah blah..

So you look at
Kleenex n. Puffs

and it does not really help you understand the essence of "Kleenex".

So it is considered a fallacious way to define something. Even if the defining term entirely captures the essence of the original, one is not enlightened, unless the defining word is so understood in the culture than nothing else really does need to be said.

Maybe a worse example is:

Mammal n. elephant, in which the defining word doesn't even capture the entire essence of what you were trying to define.

Ok, it comes up occasionally for me, and I wish, notably in Russian(!), that I could say, "Well, this is an example of a BLAH", but I just cannot come up with a term.

Any ideas? Sorry, I usually do the inverse; I have the word and don't understand the meaning. But maybe you could back into it for me. There probably is a term for it from logic or symbolic logic circles, but I just cannot think of it.

Thanks, dsteve54

P.S. I am NOT sure I understand words tautology, tautologus very well but I am not sure they fit...I could be wrong

[Slava]

Yes, there is a word for this, but I can't come up with it right now. Do you have a reverse dictionary? Look up the definition "using a part to define/name the whole." Or something along those lines. I've seen it before, but it's slipped my mind.

You're right, too, in that tautology isn't the word. Here's a link to help explain that one: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautology

[Dr. Goodword]

The use of a part to define a whole is synecdoche but I I'm not sure that DSteve is looking for that word.

Converting a proper noun to a common noun, such as Kleenex to kleenex (if that has finally occurred) or Aspirin (Bayer trademark originally) to aspirin is called commonization. The original name, Kleenex or Aspirin is the eponym of the common noun (also quisling, boycott, silhouette, guillotine, etc.)

Did any of these terms ring a bell?

[dsteve54]

The use of a part to define a whole is synecdoche but I I'm not sure that DSteve is looking for that word.

Converting a proper noun to a common noun, such as Kleenex to kleenex (if that has finally occurred) or Aspirin (Bayer trademark originally) to aspirin is called commonization. The original name, Kleenex or Aspirin is the eponym of the common noun (also quisling, boycott, silhouette, guillotine, etc.)

Did any of these terms ring a bell?

Actually, those are all good words to know about, as I had not heard of them! However, I threw you a curve by serving up the example of kleenax/Kleenax as one instance; commonization was not the thrust of what I was getting at.

However, perhaps "synecdoche" is.....I will have to research.
Whatever the case, I sort of doubt that "синекдоха" is going to be a "word suitable for everyday use", not even for a Russian. But if that is what it ends up needing to be called, well, так и быть!

Thanks for the comment!

[dsteve54]

???metonymy???

Oh, rats, I don't know!!! These are terms that are reasonable to create.

I was looking for a term that illustrates the *fallacious nature* of
defining an entire category by a an instance of that category when the instance does not embody the full meaning of the category.

Analogous to "straw man" or "straw man argument".

Unfortunately, I think the last time I had any logic class at all, at least as part of a discipline of Philosophy, was in 1974
: - (((

I don't know, could it just be expressed by saying "the fallacy of generalizing by the specific"? Or something along those lines? (shrug)

.......??? trope ???....naah...I think that is just like a "figure of speech"..