Help me map ‘syn' + ‘ek' + ‘deskhesthai' to synecdoche?

[scherz0]

Synecdoche means “figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole or vice versa [⋮] from Greek synekdokhe “the putting of a whole for a part; an understanding one with another,” literally “a receiving together or jointly,” from synekdekhesthai "supply a thought or word; take with something else, join in receiving”".

First, the syn part is actually the precursor of sin-, the prefix for “with”, and means the same, from PIE *ksun*, also “with”.

But why’s Syn- relevant to synecdoche? Because taken together, the parts represent the whole?

The second component is that of ek, the precursor of ex-, the prefix for “out”, and also means the same, from PIE *eghs*, also “out”.

How does synecdoche involve outness, or outwardness?

Finally, the root of the term is dokhe, which kind of meant “receive”. This derives from the Proto-Indo-European term *dek*, which meant something more like “to accept”. As a whole, when the parts are put together, a synecdoche really just means “without accepting”.

dekhesthai “to receive,” related to dokein “seem good” (from PIE root *dek- “to take, accept”).

What do synecdoches receive? From where or whom or what, do synecdoches receive?Synecdoche means “figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole or vice versa [⋮] from Greek synekdokhe “the putting of a whole for a part; an understanding one with another,” literally “a receiving together or jointly,” from synekdekhesthai "supply a thought or word; take with something else, join in receiving”".

First, the syn part is actually the precursor of sin-, the prefix for “with”, and means the same, from PIE *ksun*, also “with”.

But why’s Syn- relevant to synecdoche? Because taken together, the parts represent the whole?

The second component is that of ek, the precursor of ex-, the prefix for “out”, and also means the same, from PIE *eghs*, also “out”.

How does synecdoche involve outness, or outwardness?

Finally, the root of the term is dokhe, which kind of meant “receive”. This derives from the Proto-Indo-European term *dek*, which meant something more like “to accept”. As a whole, when the parts are put together, a synecdoche really just means “without accepting”.

dekhesthai “to receive,” related to dokein “seem good” (from PIE root *dek- “to take, accept”).

What do synecdoches receive? From where or whom or what, do synecdoches receive?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@scherz0

without accepting

…or accepting from without?

Part being within a whole as part of it.

Unless it isn’t, and is merely subsumed.

in which case maybe “without accepting” is accurate

As in “in but not of”.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

This was fractalicious on Wikipedia:

Kenneth Burke (1945), an American literary theorist, declared that in rhetoric, the four master tropes, or figures of speech, are metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. Burke’s primary concern with these four master tropes is more than simply their figurative usage, but includes their role in the discovery and description of the truth. He described synecdoche as “part of the whole, whole for the part, container for the contained, sign for the thing signified, material for the thing made… cause for the effect, effect for the cause, genus for the species, species for the genus”. In addition, Burke suggests synecdoche patterns can include reversible pairs such as disease-cure. Burke proclaimed the noblest synecdoche is found in the description of “microcosm and macrocosm” since microcosm is related to macrocosm as part to the whole, and either the whole can represent the part or the part can represent the whole". Burke compares synecdoche with the concept of “representation”, especially in the political sense in which elected representatives stand in pars pro toto for their electorate.