poetry and music have always been closely related. poetry can contain many different kind of rhythm at the same time to create a complex rhythmic.

A perusal of the Oxford English Dictionary shows that this spelling was rare even at the time.

Inability to recall or correctly pronounce a word is a sign of cognitive decline/dementia.

adj. "naturally accompanying or associated." n. "a phenomenon that naturally accompanies or follows something."

This instance is an adjective.

Language as action, not just description; rhetoric is not only reflective, but also integral to formation and motivation. Interesting to think about when considering Burke's historical context i.e. the early 20th century was marred by intensely violent acts such as wars, revolution, and genocide. Perhaps the physical omnipresence of violence contributed to a conceptualization of words as a kind of violence.

This is the key claim here.

I guess "old Rhetoric" is still alive, because especially on cable news or in arguments with friends, discussions are not "expositions" but "battles of words."

Words having naturally no signification, the idea which each stands for must be learned and retained, by those who would exchange thoughts, and hold intelligible discourse with others, in any language. But this is the hardest to be done where,

First, The ideas they stand for are very complex, and made up of a great number of ideas put together.

Secondly, Where the ideas they stand for have no certain connection in nature; and so no settled standard anywhere in nature existing, to rectify and adjust them by.

Thirdly, When the signification of the word is referred to a standard, which standard is not easy to be know.

Fourthly, Where the signification of the world and the real essence of the thing are not exactly the same.

These are difficulties that attend the signification of several words that are intelligible. Those which are not intelligible at all, such as names standing for any simple ideas which another has not organs of faculties to attain; as the names of colours to a blind man, or sounds to a deaf man, need not here be mentioned.

In all these cases we shall find an imperfection in words; which I shall more at large explain, in their particular application to our several sorts of ideas: for if we examine them, we shall find that the names of mixed modes are most liable to doubtfulness and imperfection, for the two first of these reasons; and the names of substances chiefly for the two latter. (818)

World → sensory perception → idea → word.

A person skilled in exegesis

exegesis

Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.

Thinking back to Sheridan, who would probably disagree: "But tho' all who are blest with the gift of speech, by constantly associating the ideas of articulate sounds, to those characters which they see on paper, come to imagine that there is a necessary connection between them, and that the one, is merely a symbol of the other; yet, that it is in itself, a manner of communication entirely different, and utterly independent of the other..."

Further down in the paragraph it is suggested that this blurred line between written and spoken rhetoric could possibly be attributed to Douglass' blending of African, European, and American cultural elements, beyond just necessary last-minute additions of antislavery tracts. Could it then be because of Sheridan's homogenous rhetorical background that he believed written and spoken word to be distinct?

The distinct, even though here tightly connected, between words and things.

This is odd to me; that Campbell seems unconcerned with any possible etymological or symbolic importance behind the words that describe the concepts he is discussing. As if the concepts can exist in the same manner without the words used to describe them? That the words have no symbolic meaning or importance in themselves, or that they might even contribute to understanding the greater concepts they represent? Is it really possible to divorce a word from "things" and still be able to understand those "things" abstractly? Idk man. Sounds like some "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," kind of bullshit to me. Like, idk Romeo, if we stop calling it a "rose" and start calling it a "prickly red blob" then that line loses a lot of its gusto.

Is this not applicable for all words? I suppose I've always thought that the definition/meaning of a word as intersectional; different interpretations or significations inform one another in a kind of network of accumulation.

A weak defense of words?

This is a compelling focus: what do words do?

So language here is also a create source (invention).

words of the wiser. the lesson is that man is the animals enemy

Weasel words

repetition such as refrains repeat and echo themes. It does give us a simplified way of reading.

it's from http://durdenipsum.com/?par=5

When in actuality "leaf" is merely the distinction of singularity, meaning not "leaves". Not based on an "original" model at all, but a distinction what it is related, and not equal to. Concepts and words only create "context"; the water that all distinctions, all rhetoric, and all convention swims in.

words are concepts and conceptual

A concept becomes a word based on its relationship to other cases.

what is up with the wording here.

Style. Use language people recognize and understand.

Use common terminology

Rhetoric does not require lengthy answers.