# Metaphor: leafy umbrella or leafy sheet?



## wangqh2696122

_<< --- *Metaphor: leafy umbrella or leafy sheet?* --- >>_

Which metaphor is more suitable in this case? Thank you in advance!
Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a ____ over the road.


----------



## Chasint

Am umbrella is associated with rain so the image doesn't fit with a cloudless sky. Sheet sounds like a bed sheet.

The usual word is "canopy"


----------



## velisarius

I've heard of a beach umbrella, so the idea of trees forming an umbrella doesn't bother me unduly-- except for the fact that an umbrella is circular.


----------



## wangqh2696122

Your explanations have widened my eyes!


----------



## Mick

But it sounds to me as though what needs describing is what the 'shade of trees' has created on the road, rather than the trees themselves.
'... the shade of trees formed a dark pool over the road.'


----------



## perpend

You could say "parasol".  Mardi Gras fans will applaud.


----------



## Chasint

Mick said:


> But it sounds to me as though what needs describing is what the 'shade of trees' has created on the road, rather than the trees themselves.
> '... the shade of trees formed a dark pool over the road.'


You're right. The shade of trees cannot form an umbrella/canopy.  It is the leaves of the trees that do that.


----------



## perpend

The shade starts at the point where the foliage is (where the sunlight hit the trees), so I don't see why that shade can't be a sort of "shelter" that comes with an umbrella/canopy.


----------



## AngelEyes

I'm only addressing the two choices you presented. Leafy sheet doesn't work.

Leafy umbrella does work, in my opinion. Some people use an umbrella to protect themselves from the sunshine, although most people don't. It's more an old-fashioned activity, or it can be used in writing a scene to create a genteel mental picture. It would also be seen as a rather romantic notion, too.


----------



## Chasint

perpend said:


> The shade starts at the point where of the foliage (where the sunlight hit the trees), so I don't see why that shade can't be a sort of "shelter" that comes with an umbrella/canopy.


You said it yourself. The "shelter" comes with an umbrella. It is not in itself the umbrella. That's why it doesn't work to say that the shade forms the umbrella. Rather the umbrella creates the shade.


----------



## perpend

wangqh2696122 said:


> _<< --- *Metaphor: leafy umbrella or leafy sheet?* --- >>_
> Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a ____ over the road.



Hi, Biffo, But it's what this shade "*formed*" in the OP (original post/text).

I agree with AngelEyes and see no problem with using umbrella/canopy in that text.


----------



## Chasint

perpend said:


> Hi, Biffo, But it's what this shade "*formed*" in the OP (original post/text).
> ...


I'm hesitant to continue with this part of the discussion but, actually, it is on topic.

In #5, Mick questioned the validity of the original post. I agreed with him. I assert it makes no sense to say _"the shade of trees formed an umbrella/sheet over the road."_ This is because shade cannot form an umbrella/sheet. It is the trees themselves that act as the umbrella/sheet.


----------



## perpend

I think both are possible.


----------



## AngelEyes

I see it the way perpend does.

Maybe it's a BE/AE situation here because "leafy umbrella" has a certain poetry to it and works. The tree trunk is the pole, and the leaves form the fabric over the skeleton - or "ribs" - made by the branches. If I were to lie in the grass and look up, with my imagination, I could certainly envision the similarity between the two it would suggest in my mind.

If you used the term, "leafy brolly" would that apply for BE?


----------



## Chasint

AngelEyes said:


> I see it the way perpend does.
> 
> Maybe it's a BE/AE situation here because "leafy umbrella" has a certain poetry to it and works. The tree trunk is the pole, and the leaves form the fabric over the skeleton - or "ribs" - made by the branches. If I were to lie in the grass and look up, with my imagination, I could certainly envision the similarity between the two it would suggest in my mind.
> 
> If you used the term, "leafy brolly" would that apply for BE?


I have no problem with the leaves forming some kind of covering (call it an umbrella or what you will).  The original sentence doesn't say that. It says that "the shade of trees" forms a covering.

As I see it, the umbrella causes the shade. The shade does not cause the umbrella.


P.S.
Haha! Brolly would sound funny! 
My suggestion was canopy.


----------



## PaulQ

Biffo said:


> The umbrella causes the shade. The shade does not cause the umbrella.


This is the key point. We need a word to describe what the shade causes across the road. "[A dark/light/etc] shadow" would be OK.


----------



## AngelEyes

I feel like we're picking at twigs here. The shade of trees, or the shade of an umbrella: both protect you from the rays of the sun. That's how the two connect. I really have no problem with it, but it's good to get different perspectives.


----------



## Chasint

AngelEyes said:


> ...The shade of trees, or the shade of an umbrella...


You can't say the shade of an umbrella forms an umbrella so how can you say the shade of trees forms an umbrella?

Anyway here's my final suggestion:

Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a canopy/umbrella over the road. 

Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the trees formed a [shady] canopy/umbrella over the road.


----------



## AngelEyes

Biffo, so it's the added word _leafy _that doesn't work for you? It's the word you omitted in your suggestions. Okay, if you want. I still think the way perpend and I look at it is good, too.

A metaphor expresses how something resembles something, although not literally. The thick leaves of a tree and the shadow of an umbrella both shield you from the sun. To compare the two works: the thick leaves are like that of a leafy umbrella, instead of a cloth one. I'm not trying to create chaos here. I'm just giving my perspective on the question.


----------



## Chasint

AngelEyes said:


> Biffo, so it's the added word _leafy _that doesn't work for you? It's the word you omitted in your suggestions. Okay, if you want. I still think the way perpend and I look at it is good, too.
> 
> A metaphor expresses how something resembles something, although not literally. The thick leaves of a tree and the shadow of an umbrella both shield you from the sun. To compare the two works: the thick leaves are like that of a leafy umbrella, instead of a cloth one. I'm not trying to create chaos here. I'm just giving my perspective on the question.



I think I can safely say that neither of us understands what the other is talking about.


----------



## AngelEyes

Haha! Well, I did learn that "brolly" used in this instance is funny. It's all good because wanggh2696122 now has lots to think about.


----------



## abenr

Biffo said:


> Am umbrella is associated with rain so the image doesn't fit with a cloudless sky. Sheet sounds like a bed sheet.
> 
> The usual word is "canopy"



The sentence begins with "Even with the sun still high," so an unexpected umbrella is fine with me.  One can note, too, that umbrellas are in fact used to keep the sun off some fragile people.


----------



## Edinburgher

The problem with the difference of view between Biffo and perpend lies not with _leafy_ but with _form_.  The verb _form_ carries a causal element, and I'm with Biffo on this one.
To say that the shade *forms* an umbrella (when it is the umbrella that *causes* the shade) is as absurd as suggesting that a solar eclipse forms the moon (to draw an analogy that is also shadow-related).  At best the effect can make us aware of its cause (and the effect can thereby _give shape to_, or _form_, the cause in our minds), but I prefer to think of the moon forming the solar eclipse.


----------



## Chasint

A final thought:

Isn't a leafy sheet something that bears leave in the woods?


----------



## JamesM

I'm with biffo.  If it were "...the trees formed a leafy umbrella..." I would have no problem with it.  The problem is it is "...the *shade* of the trees formed a leafy umbrella..."  The shade can't form an umbrella.  Edinburgher's analogy was very clear, I thought.

I can imagine "the shade of the trees *cast* a leafy sheet over the road."


----------



## AngelEyes

Hi James,

I can understand your post, and I don't disagree with your example. However, I have no problem with also using the form, "the shade of..." because it's all poetic symbolism anyway, so to me, it's just a matter of preference. The trees don't literally form an umbrella, either. So the trees, the shade - one or both together - can be used to express the fact that, in the shade or under the protection of an umbrella, you're shielded from the heat and the brightness of the sun.

Maybe the difference is whether you want to focus on the tree being the barrier between you and the direct sunlight, or if you want to focus on the similarity between the shade you get from being under a tree and the protection you get from the shade made by an umbrella.

There is a fine distinction.


----------



## JamesM

I wouldn't say "The shade from the clouds formed a puffy canopy over the hill", for example, but I would say "The clouds formed a puffy canopy over the hill".  The aptness of a metaphor is that it is analogous, in my opinion.  There is such a thing as a sloppy metaphor.   The shade doesn't form a canopy. The shadow is flat, like a sheet, hence the original question.  The trees are umbrella-shaped.  The shadow isn't.

If you mix the two it's like saying "The cut from the knife glinted angrily".  The cut doesn't glint; the knife does.


----------



## Packard

Biffo said:


> You can't say the shade of an umbrella forms an umbrella so how can you say the shade of trees forms an umbrella?
> 
> Anyway here's my final suggestion:
> 
> Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a canopy/umbrella over the road.
> 
> Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the trees formed a [shady] canopy/umbrella over the road.




The darker conical area that is shaded by an umbrella is called the "umbra"; the outer (not so dark areas) would be the "penumbra". "Umbrella getting its name from "umbra", which is usually used in relation to astronomy but could be used here too, but it might sound to esoteric for some situations.

I would say that "the trees formed an umbrella that shaded..."


----------



## wandle

The verb 'to form' need not have a causal sense. In the sense 'constitute', it is equivalent to the verb 'to be'.

The topic sentence seems to me comparable to: _'The shade of the trees was a leafy umbrella over the road'._


----------



## JamesM

I still see the same problem with that, wandle.  The trees were a leafy umbrella over the road.  This umbrella provides shade.  The shade itself wasn't an umbrella.  Take out "of the trees" and see if it makes sense to you: "The shade was a leafy umbrella over the road."  To me, it doesn't.


----------



## Packard

The shade of the leafy trees left a dark umbra at ground level.


----------



## Chasint

Packard said:


> The shade of the leafy trees left a dark umbra at ground level.


I wasn't going to return to this thread but I'm intrigued. There is clearly something odd going on for such a mismatch of opinions.
Packard, your suggestion is incomprehensible to me and yet others seem to think that something like that would make sense. Therefore I want to try to understand it. I can only imagine there is a vocabulary difference.

In the above context, could I ask what you mean by the word "shade"?   Is it equivalent to 'darkness'?  Does it mean something physical? Does it refer to a shadow on the ground? Does it exist in three-dimensional space?


----------



## AngelEyes

Biffo, I can tell you that we use the word, shade, in this manner:

"Do you want to sit in the sun or sit in the shade?"
"Boy, this sun is hot. Let's go sit in the shade."

Just Google:
In the shade of the old oak tree
In the shade of the old apple tree


----------



## Chasint

AngelEyes said:


> Biffo, I can tell you that we use the word, shade, in this manner:
> 
> "Do you want to sit in the sun or sit in the shade?"
> "Boy, this sun is hot. Let's go sit in the shade."
> 
> Just Google:
> In the shade of the old oak tree
> In the shade of the old apple tree


But that's what I don't understand. Would you say "The shade of the old apple tree forms an umbrella"?  Because that makes no sense to me.

Could you say which of the following defintions of shade you are referring to?
*shade* /ʃeɪd/n

relative darkness produced by the blocking out of light
a place made relatively darker or cooler than other areas by the blocking of light, esp sunlight
a position of relative obscurity
something used to provide a shield or protection from a direct source of light, such as a lampshade
a darker area indicated in a painting, drawing, etc, by shading
a colour that varies slightly from a standard colour due to a difference in hue, saturation, or luminosity: _a darker shade of green_
a slight amount: _a shade of difference_
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/shade

Thanks


----------



## AngelEyes

Like you, Biffo, I'm confused by such differing opinions. 

I'm trying to understand why I would phrase it like Wandle did - or rather, why I prefer it. It's not so much I don't like it without, "The shade of the," but maybe the reason adding that phrase works for me is that shade is the darker spot that shields you from the sun, and when under an umbrella, its shade also does the same. Shade is what both situations have in common, thus there's the resemblance which is found in metaphors.

To answer your specific question, I would only word it like so: "The shade of the old apple tree forms a leafy umbrella." One reason is because not all trees have leaves on them year-round. That old apple tree may be sitting there, bare, in early spring, or maybe it's in some state of decaying.

I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm actually frustrated we can't all agree.


----------



## perpend

Having read this mini-work of non-fiction, about fiction , I agree as from the beginning with AngelEyes.

I think Wandle makes a very compelling point. I was looking at "formed" this way too.

But, I think most importantly that the writer has some poetic license here. Over-analyzing seems to take away from text.

And, now I think I shan't be able to enjoy the umbrella that is the shade of verdant foliage.


----------



## AngelEyes

Biffo:

Your first two in that series of definitions apply here, especially the second one.

Perpend:


----------



## JamesM

> To answer your specific question, I would only word it like so: "The shade of the old apple tree forms a leafy umbrella." One reason is because not all trees have leaves on them year-round. That old apple tree may be sitting there, bare, in early spring, or maybe it's in some state of decaying.



Here is a picture of a shade tree:

http://www.shadetreevapes.com/produ.../323828-shade-tree-on-grassy-hill-posters.jpg

What shape is the tree?  What shape is the shade?  Where do you see the shade in the picture?

To me, the shade is visible on the ground.  It forms an elongated oval.  The tree forms (roughly) an umbrella shape.  The shade doesn't form an umbrella.  I'm very visual with words.  I can't "see" how shade can form the shape of an umbrella.  Can you "see" where I'm coming from?   The shade exists only underneath the umbrella formed by the branches.


----------



## AngelEyes

But if the branches are bare, you wouldn't have the crucial part in the comparison: shade. And how would you know that, if not for adding details?

Aw, James, I'm really not trying to raise your blood pressure.    I'm not only visual, I'm literal, too. The tree could be standing there, but be incapable of forming an umbrella of any worth, if not for the shade of its leaves.

Really, though, perpend mentioned the word, _poetic_. It's what drives me in deciding sometimes my approach to writing a line. (I'm sure that REALLY raises your ire, but there it is.) 

Oh, well. This has been an exhilarating and informative discussion.


----------



## JamesM

I don't mind the details, AngelEyes, I just want them to be accurate.    Looking at it another way, the shade cannot be there at all without the leafy branches.  The shade can't form anything; it is formed by something else.  I don't think you're literal, at least in this discussion.  The shade does not exist as a separate thing.

I love poetic lines.  I really don't like sloppy writing.  In this case, my dislike of sloppiness outweighs my love of poetry.

To me it's like saying "The shadow of the moon was a shiny, silvery coin in the sky."  The shadow wasn't a shiny, silvery coin.  The metaphor attributes the characteristics of one thing (the moon) to the shadow.  It's the same problem with "the shade of the tree formed an umbrella".


----------



## AngelEyes

Well, I'm pretty sure you just insulted me, so I guess we've come to the end of this discussion.


----------



## JamesM

It wasn't meant as an insult in any way.  I apologize if you were offended.  Neither my blood pressure nor my ire was raised.


----------



## perpend

Hi James, Let's say that you are a bird sitting in your nest in a tree with lots of leaves.

When the shade that is provided forms an umbrella, so that you can sit in your nest, after having flown out to find food for your offspring, and having regurgitated it to them, you might find some comfort.

Is it inconceivable (to you) that "the shade" starts at the point of the sunlight meeting the foliage, and that so-called shade forms an umbrella?

I still find the text poetically refreshing.


----------



## JamesM

Sorry, but yes, it's inconceivable.  It sounds to me much like "The air inside the balloon forms a balloon shape."   The air's shape is an effect of the balloon's containment of it.  The shade is an effect of the leafy tree blocking the sun.  The effect doesn't form the cause.

I'm fine with disagreeing on this one.  I think metaphors strike people differently. If I read the original sentence in a book I would think the writer didn't have a great command of the language.  Others have said they find it poetic and refreshing.  It's really just a matter of opinion.


----------



## velisarius

velisarius said:


> I've heard of a beach umbrella, so the idea of trees forming an umbrella doesn't bother me unduly-- except for the fact that an umbrella is circular.


I beg everyone's pardon for quoting myself (bad habit of mine), but in my post #3 before this discussion took off, I said "the idea of trees forming an umbrella doesn't bother me".

I had mentally transposed the original into "the shady trees", so I suggest "the trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road." The word 'shady' isn't really necessary. I'm assuming the OP has given us a self-made sentence.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> The topic sentence seems to me comparable to: _'The shade of the trees was a leafy umbrella over the road'._





JamesM said:


> I still see the same problem with that, wandle.  The trees were a leafy umbrella over the road.


The image in my mind is of a road between two trees, or two rows of trees. The branches of the trees arch over the road, meeting or nearly meeting in the middle. The space over the road shaded by the arching branches has a parabolic outline at its top, like the space under an umbrella.

That shape is not formed (in the constitutive sense of the verb) by the trees. The trees stand either side of the road. The branches of each tree rise in the typical cone shape. The shape formed by the trees is that of two pyramids side by side.

Returning to the parabolic shape of the shade, how can that be described? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to call that shade an umbrella. The word 'umbrella' itself means 'shade' (literally 'little shade'). Once we call it an umbrella, I see no objection to calling it a leafy umbrella, because its upper outline - the parabola itself - is created by the leaves. In winter, there would be no shade.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> The image in my mind is of a road between two trees, or two rows of trees. The branches of the trees arch over the road, meeting or nearly meeting in the middle. The space over the road shaded by the arching branches has a parabolic outline at its top, like the space under an umbrella.
> 
> 
> That shape is not formed (in the constitutive sense of the verb) by the trees. The trees stand either side of the road. The branches of each tree rise in the typical cone shape. The shape formed by the trees is that of two pyramids side by side.
> 
> 
> It seems perfectly reasonable to me to call that shade an umbrella. The word 'umbrella' itself means 'shade' (literally 'little shade'). Once we call it an umbrella, I see no objection to calling it a leafy umbrella, because its upper outline - the parabola itself - is created by the leaves. In winter, there would be no shade.


*A.* Here's what Online Etymology says.
_umbrella​ hand-held portable canopy which opens and folds," c.1600, first attested in Donne's letters, from Italian ombrello, from Late Latin umbrella, altered (by influence of umbra) from Latin umbella "sunshade, parasol," diminutive of umbra "shade, shadow" _
It indicates that the Latin word meant "sunshade, parasol".   A diminutive does not always refers to a smaller version of something so "Umb[r]ella" doesn't have to mean little shade.


*B.* When you speak of branches forming a cone shape then I imagine something like this picture. Is that what you mean? http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/3/3/3/large2/3330550.jpg


*C. Now, trying to understand what you say about 'shade'. *

1. _"The space over the road shaded by the arching branches has a parabolic outline at its top".  _I can agree with that. 


2. _"That shape is not formed (in the constitutive sense of the verb) by the trees."_ I can accept that with minor reservations.


3. _"Returning to the parabolic shape of the shade, how can that be described?"_  This is the precise point where our opinions diverge. Again we come to what we mean by "the shade".


Could I ask again: Of the  definitions in the Wordreference dictionary, which meaning are you using here?

If you say
5. a darker area indicated in a painting, drawing, etc, by shading Then we can move forward.   Otherwise I think we are still stuck.

We are splitting hairs but I feel it's worth it.


----------



## Packard

Note that "shade" (noun) also means "something that reduces light".


----------



## perpend

Maybe like a lamp-shade/lampshade, Packard?


----------



## Packard

perpend said:


> Maybe like a lamp-shade/lampshade, Packard?


Or window shade.

In my opinion the best metaphors bring up images in your head. They are visual (as a metaphor). The "umbrella" is a good visual. But trees are in themselves a good image for that same purpose. I believe that there is a song with lyrics thas say "sitting under the shade of an apple tree". I try Googling that.

Additionally, in my opinion, the image of a canopy formed by the leaves of a tree is quite sharp in most people's minds and no metaphor is needed.

Addendum:

I found the lyrics (credited to Louis Armstrong). The first line is also the title of the song:

_In the shade of the old apple tree
When the love in your eyes I could see
When the voice that I heard, like the song of the bird
Seemed to whisper sweet music to me _
​


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> diminutive does not always refers to a smaller version of something so "Umb[r]ella" doesn't have to mean little shade.


I feel sure that this diminutive was a literal one, 'a little shade', because the amount of shade provided is so small compared with that of a tree or a building. 
It makes no difference to the topic sentence, though, since the writer is referring to the shade of the trees.

The trees in your image look to me as if they have been artificially shaped. 


> *C. Now, trying to understand what you say about 'shade'. *
> 
> Could I ask again: Of the  definitions in the Wordreference dictionary, which meaning are you using here?


The writer speaks of the shade of the trees. I understand that as the three-dimensional shaded space beneath the trees.
Why 'three-dimensional'? (1) Because it is three-dimensional and (2) because the writer calls it an umbrella, showing that he or she understood it like that.


----------



## JamesM

(I have to admit... at this point this is just an interesting argument... I mean, discussion.  )

Here is an image of an umbrella and its shade:

http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/produ...ade-10-foot-Cantilever-Umbrella-P15123946.jpg

If we consider the shade to be a three-dimensional space, it forms a cylinder shape (or, in this case, a hexagonal cylinder), not an umbrella shape.  The umbrella is umbrella-shaped.  The three-dimensional space covered by its shadow isn't.

Personally, I don't think of the shade or shadow of a tree or a cloud being three-dimensional.  I only see its effect on the objects that are covered by it.


----------



## Packard

JamesM said:


> (I have to admit... at this point this is just an interesting argument... I mean, discussion.  )
> 
> Here is an image of an umbrella and its shade:
> 
> http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/produ...ade-10-foot-Cantilever-Umbrella-P15123946.jpg
> 
> If we consider the shade to be a three-dimensional space, it forms a cylinder shape (or, in this case, a hexagonal cylinder), not an umbrella shape. The umbrella is umbrella-shaped. The three-dimensional space covered by its shadow isn't.
> 
> Personally, I don't think of the shade or shadow of a tree or a cloud being three-dimensional. I only see its effect on the objects that are covered by it.



A two dimensional mind in a three dimensional world. 

The shadow (or shade) will pick up the dimensions of the surface it is projected on. So if the ground is level, the shadow will be level. At which it begs the question: When does a "shade" become a "shadow"? For me, in the illustration of the pool umbrella above, if I were sitting under it, it would be shade. When I am looking at the umbrella and the dark area under it, that dark area becomes the umbrella's shadow.

So if I am under the tree, I am in its shade.

If I am looking at the tree from a short distance, then I see the tree and its shadow.

Addendum:

On further consideration it is the darker area above the shadow that makes up the shade.  Shade will never have a shape until it becomes a projected shadow.


----------



## Chasint

Packard said:


> ...So if I am under the tree, I am in its shade...


 And here we have the crux of the matter. If we sit under a tree we are in its shade. We are not under its shade.


----------



## wandle

I do not think we ought to press the metaphor too far. The shade - the shaded space beneath the trees - is in reality three-dimensional. The writer appreciates this but to describe it, sees that space in outline and evokes its similarity to an umbrella seen in outline.  The umbrella has a semi-circular, or at least arced, profile.
The author sees the space shaded by the trees as roughly semi-circular, or arced, in profile.


----------



## Packard

Biffo said:


> And here we have the crux of the matter. If we sit under a tree we are in its shade. We are not under its shade.




I'll agree to that.  We are under the shade tree for the purpose of sitting in the shade.


----------



## JamesM

> e author sees the space shaded by the trees as roughly semi-circular, or arced, in profile.



So, explain to me how the shaded space is a "leafy" umbrella.  I understand the trees being a leafy umbrella but the space underneath is not leafy.  The space's shape is defined by the trees, not by the shade.

The problem with this metaphor is that it doesn't extend well.  I don't think I'm the one who is pressing it too far.  I just don't think it holds up to scrutiny.  It's jarring because it is not well-constructed, in my opinion.


----------



## Edinburgher

Come on, folks.  Whether the shadow is two-dimensional (on the ground) or three-dimensional (in the air space between the ground-shadow and the parasol) could be relevant to persons/objects in that air space even when they are not on the ground, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Whether we use the word _shade_ to refer to the shadow itself or to its giver (the parasol) is also irrelevant.  In the latter sense we actually can sit "under the shade".  In the lyrics to "Waltzing Matilda" the jolly swagman camped "under the shade of a coolibah tree".

 Which meaning _shade_ has is irrelevant because in one case the parasol forms=causes the shade=shadow, while in the other case the fabric of the parasol forms=constitutes the shade=shield which in turn forms=causes the shadow.  In neither of those two cases does it make sense to say that the shade forms the parasol, it's always the other way round.  Hence, in the thread original, it is the leafy trees that constitute the shield which casts the shadow beneath.  There is no shade (whether this means shadow or whether it means shield) that can "form a leafy parasol".

I've used the word _parasol_ in preference to _umbrella_ here solely to avoid the interpretation of _umbrella_ as the shadow itself (which I don't consider appropriate, by the way; in modern English I'm pretty sure that _umbrella _always refers to what casts the shadow, never to the shadow itself).


----------



## wandle

This page contains what seems to be the exercise in question. 

The immediate context is as follows:

_Smith drove his pickup a couple of miles along the winding road to get to the other side of the lake. This road, in the truest sense, was a path wagging in the heavy wooded area. Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road and it suddenly seemed late in the evening._

The second sentence hardly inspires confidence in the writer, but if the trees arching over the road are seen from the point of view of the pair in the pickup, is there really any difficulty in seeing the shade (not shadow) they create as umbrella-shaped?

We are in the world of metaphor, where an umbrella need not be a physical object as long as it has some identifiable property of an umbrella: in this case, the shape.


----------



## JamesM

I think we simply have to agree to disagree.  I don't see the shade as being in the shape of an umbrella.  You do.  I see the boughs of the trees possibly being in the shape of an umbrella.  The shade is not umbrella-shaped to me.  Does the shade having an arching top followed by a thin slice of shade below it to match the tree/parasol/umbrella?  Not to me.   I think we've reached an impasse.



			
				Edinburgher said:
			
		

> In neither of those two cases does it make sense to say that the shade forms the parasol, it's always the other way round.



Precisely!  I think all we can say is that the metaphor either works or it doesn't depending on whether you can accept that shade has an umbrella or parasol shape.  Edinburgher and I, along with others, can't.  You, AngelEyes, and others, can.  It simply doesn't work as a visual metaphor for those of us who see it this way (that is, that the tree is umbrella-shaped but the shade isn't).


----------



## wandle

JamesM said:


> It simply doesn't work as a visual metaphor for those of us who see it this way


I appreciate that. Far be it from me to seek to change anyone's perception. However, can we at least agree on two points?

(a) Regardless of the overall shape of the trees, there was, from the driver's viewpoint, underneath the trees a semi-circle of relative darkness into which the pickup moved as it drove along the road.
(b) The author's words _'the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road'_ are intended as a visual image of that semi-circle. 

We can, I hope, recognise that as the author's intent even if we do not consider it a successful image.

After all, it can only be meant to represent a momentary view: the first impression created by the approach to the shaded area.
Once they are driving through it, it could more easily be seen as a tunnel than an umbrella.


----------



## Chasint

wangqh2696122 said:


> _<< --- *Metaphor: leafy umbrella or leafy sheet?* --- >>_
> 
> Which metaphor is more suitable in this case? Thank you in advance!
> Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a ____ over the road.


I am still trying hard to achieve the same viewpoint as those who find the original sentence acceptable. I think that it all comes down to the mental image we form. For the life of me I can't get it. I feel rather like those people who could not see Magic-Eye pictures.

Example of a Magic-Eye picture
_A lot of people commented about how they can never see the hidden image._
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29771/why-cant-some-people-see-magic-eye-pictures

Now, as it happens I am lucky enough to be able to see the 3-D images easily (they are not exactly spectacular by the way - they look rather like pieces of cardboard or lumps of paper-mache.). However, try as I might, I cannot see the shade of trees forming a leafy umbrella.

If there were a single tree and it looked like this http://pics.davesgarden.com/pics/2006/11/13/debnes_dfw_tx/8dcf46.jpg then at least I could start to make some sense of the metaphor (with a lot of effort).

Could one of you 'shadists' do me a favour and find a picture that illustrates what you think we are talking about?

Many thanks


----------



## Packard

wandle said:


> I appreciate that. Far be it from me to seek to change anyone's perception. However, can we at least agree on two points?
> 
> (a) Regardless of the overall shape of the trees, there was, from the driver's viewpoint, underneath the trees a semi-circle of relative darkness into which the pickup moved as it drove along the road...
> .



For me if trees "form a leafy umbrella" they mimic the shape and function (to some degree) of an umbrella. 

(I will check with my insurance agent. He just sold me an umbrella policy. Maybe he will know.)


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> The immediate context is as follows:
> 
> _Smith drove his pickup a couple of miles along the winding road to get to the other side of the lake. This road, in the truest sense, was a path wagging in the heavy wooded area. Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road and it suddenly seemed late in the evening._
> 
> ... is there really any difficulty in seeing the shade (not shadow) they create as umbrella-shaped?


Yes, you have agreed it is a metaphor, thus it need not be anything like a real umbrella; it need merely have a few of an umbrella's properties.

_Smith drove his pickup a couple of miles along the winding road to  get to the other side of the lake. This road, in the truest sense, was a  path wagging *in the heavy wooded area.* Even with the sun still high in  the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the  road and it suddenly seemed late in the evening._

This guy is driving through a tunnel of trees: metaphorical umbrellas can be any shape.


----------



## JamesM

I can't agree with A, and that's probably where we visualize it differently.  The shade is not semi-circular in shape to me.   As for B, I can understand his intent. I think he failed in the execution of it.

Does the following sentence make sense to you:

"As they walked along the sunny street the shade of the shop's awnings formed squarish umbrellas over the sidewalk/pavement."  To me, the shade doesn't form an umbrella.

[edit]


			
				Paulq said:
			
		

> Yes, you have agreed it is a metaphor, thus it need not be anything like a real umbrella; it need merely have a few of an umbrella's properties.



The quality of an umbrella is that it gives shade.  The shade doesn't form a fabricky umbrella over the holder.  This metaphor asks me to impart the quality of the umbrella to the shade it casts.  It's a mismatch, in my mind. The trees have qualities that are similar to umbrellas.  The shade, whether of an umbrella or a tree, does not have the qualities of the umbrella or the tree.

It's like saying "the sound of his voice formed a surprised 'O'."  The sound doesn't have the shape of an O. The mouth that produced the sound does.


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> Could one of you do me a favour and find a picture that illustrates what you think we are talking about?


For example: Treecoveredroad


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> For example: Treecoveredroad
> To complete the image, pan back mentally with an open sunlit area on either side.


Nope - can't see it!



_____________________________________________________________________________
P.S. I'm currently trying to find a Magic-Eye picture of an umbrella but no luck so far 
Usually they were of fairly simple shapes because the resolution is so poor.


----------



## wandle

JamesM said:


> Does the following sentence make sense to you:
> 
> "As they walked along the sunny street the shade of the shop's awnings formed squarish umbrellas over the sidewalk/pavement."


I have never seen a squarish umbrella. In my experience, they are semi-circular or at least arced in outline.


----------



## JamesM

Neither can I.  The tree branches arch like a cathedral.  The shade is not even solid. It's dappled, at best.  This just doesn't work for me.  Neither would "tunnel" with this particular photo.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> I have never seen a squarish umbrella. In my experience, they are semi-circular or at least arced in outline.



All right.   Let's imagine semi-circular awnings.  "As they walked along the sunny street the shade of the shop's awnings formed fabric-tinted umbrellas over the sidewalk/pavement."

Do you really think the _shade_ forms umbrellas over the sidewalk/pavement?

Photo here:

http://www.ozsun.com.au/assets/ContentImages/awnings/awning6.jpg

(And before you mention it, yes, the shade does not reach the sidewalk.  This is the best I could do on short notice.   )


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> Nope - can't see it!


Would you agree that a view such as that image is what the author intends to convey?


----------



## wandle

JamesM said:


> "As they walked along the sunny street the shade of the shop's awnings formed fabric-tinted umbrellas over the sidewalk/pavement."


 Awnings project from buildings, though. I do not see any parallel for that in the original image.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> Would you agree that a view such as that image is what the author intends to convey?



Since the metaphor fails to convey an image to those who think it fails, how can we determine what the author intended to convey?

If I drop out "shade", I still don't see any image of an umbrella from the trees.  A leafy canopy might work, or even a leafy cloister, for that particular image when speaking of what the trees form.  The shade is  visible only as a pattern sprinkled across the lane.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> Would you agree that a view such as that image is what the author intends to convey?


No, on two counts.

1. There is no umbrella shape anywhere

2. The patches of shade that I see (in terms of how someone would draw a pencil sketch) are far too blotchy to form a continuous surface.

Incidentally I couldn't find a Magic-Eye picture of an umbrella. The nearest I got was this one of a turtle with an umbrella-shaped shell. http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000926865/Magic-eye-9358309253_xlarge.jpeg


----------



## wandle

JamesM said:


> Since the metaphor fails to convey an image to those who think it fails, how can we determine what the author intended to convey?


Is there anything else he could have intended to convey? He tells us the road winds through a wooded area and the scene is relatively dark.
The suggested image  fits that description and shows trees arching over the road, which roughly fits the shape of an umbrella.

One cannot expect an image from nature in a not very literary composition to be precise.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> Awnings project from buildings, though. I do not see any parallel for that in the original image.



* As I understand it, you are saying the metaphor refers to the shape of the shade of the trees, not the shape of the trees
* The semi-circular top to the shade is supposed to be reminiscent of the umbrella
* The issue is not the shape of the object that casts the shade, but the shape of shade itself, as you've contended
* The shade/shadow of the awning has a semi-circular arch followed by a cylinder of shade, like a tree's shade

To me there are quite a few parallels.

I think what you may be referring to is the negative space outlined by the bottom of the tree branches and then calling that the shade.   That's where it fails for me.  Shade, for me, is not a space that extends from the ground up to the bottom of the branches.  Shade is the effect I experience when the branches block the light.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> Is there anything else he could have intended to convey? He tells us the road winds through a wooded area and the scene is relatively dark.
> The suggested image  fits that description and shows trees arching over the road, which roughly fits the shape of an umbrella.
> 
> One cannot expect an image from nature in a not very literary composition to be precise.



It's not even close to precise.  At best, it limps.  

The space defined by the bottoms of the branches in that photo would make a very strange umbrella to me, more like a conical mushroom, if anything.  More importantly, the shade is not consistent.  It's not solid.  The bottom of the branches have light on them.  The road is interspersed with light and dark.  There's nothing to me that resembles an umbrella.

Beyond that, shade itself isn't shaped like an umbrella.  The _tree_ may be, but not in that picture.

Here is a tree that is shaped like an umbrella:

http://www.nigeldennis.com/stock/images/flora/65140.jpg

Note that its shade is not umbrella-shaped.

Here is a road that passes through a tunnel of trees:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KtaxFGzbhvU/Ud_XPr8DVmI/AAAAAAAAKQs/Ib8nUk675Lg/s1600/Leafy+Tunnel.jpg

The trees form a tunnel over the road.  The shade does not form a tunnel; the trees do.


----------



## Chasint

JamesM said:


> ...I think what you may be referring to is the negative space outlined by the bottom of the tree branches and then calling that the shade. That's where it fails for me. Shade, for me, is not a space that extends from the ground up to the bottom of the branches. Shade is the effect I experience when the branches block the light.


JamesM,  with respect I feel as though you are trying to argue. I on the other hand am trying to understand. As a fellow non-shadist I didn't take it that way.  My idea for trying to understand the metaphor is as follows:

1. Stand under a leafy tree.

2. Take a powerful spray gun filled with fluorescent orange paint

3. Spray up into the canopy of the tree thus coating the undersides of the leaves with paint

4. Look up into the tree and observe the orange-painted leaves

5. These form the shape of an umbrella


Shadists - am I right so far?


----------



## Andygc

Fascinating.

... that a dreadful piece of writing can attract so much discussion. I suppose that just goes to demonstrate how badly it is written. A pity the OP failed to provide the source but presented it as if it was his own writing. 

If only the writer had gone for "_the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road", then all would have been right with the world. 

PS There's *lots* of square umbrellas. One of our local pubs has them over the tables - great big ones. Try Google images._


----------



## JamesM

(I don't mean to argue, but I might be anyway.  )  I'll see if I can understand you step-by-step.

How is what you have described different from what I said?



> I see the boughs of the trees possibly being in the shape of an umbrella.



I agree that in some photos the branches of the trees meeting in the middle could form something that was umbrella-shaped.  So, so far, as a non-shadist, I'm on board with your steps.

Here's a single tree that I could see providing shade like an umbrella:

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/queerbychoice/218786/545623/545623_original.jpg

I'm looking for a lane covered in the same way.

[edit]
Ah, here's one that more closely matches an umbrella shape, although I see it more as a round arch:

http://thewicklowway.ie/blog/wp-con...y-walk-clonegal-shillelagh/tree_arch_road.jpg


----------



## JamesM

Andygc said:


> If only the writer had gone for "_the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road_", then all would have been right with the world.



Absolutely.


----------



## Andygc

Or even "_the trees cast the shade of a leafy umbrella over the road". _


----------



## Chasint

Andygc said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> ... that a dreadful piece of writing can attract so much discussion. I suppose that just goes to demonstrate how badly it is written...


Sorry, you have missed the point. It's not just the author. A large percentage of the contributors to this discussion think that " the shade of trees formed an umbrella over the road." is a perfectly good metaphor and well written.

I personally am trying to understand their point of view (so far I'm failing but I have hopes).


----------



## Andygc

No, Biffo. I haven't missed the point. I've read the whole thread, and I know some folk think the "metaphor" makes sense. Since a shade can't make an umbrella,  it doesn't, so it's not actually an effective metaphor.


----------



## Chasint

Andygc said:


> No, Biffo. I haven't missed the point. I've read the whole thread, and I know some folk think the "metaphor" makes sense. Since a shade can't make an umbrella,  it doesn't, so it's not actually an effective metaphor.


For the purposes of this discussion I don't think you can assume that shade can't make an umbrella and then prove you are right by relying on that assumption.


----------



## Andygc

Biffo, I don't assume shade can't make an umbrella, I know it can't. Shade is intangible, and can be made by a brolly or anything else that can obstruct electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. A brolly may be tangible - a physical object - or metaphorical. If it's tangible it casts a real shadow. If it's metaphorical it casts a metaphorical shadow. Either way, it's that way around. The shadow doesn't cast a brolly.

I suppose that it is possible that you failed to notice an elision "Since a shade can't make an umbrella, it (the metaphor) doesn't (make sense)".


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> If only the writer had gone for "_the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road", then all would have been right with the world. _


_


JamesM said:



			Absolutely. 

Click to expand...

That does seem, if I may say so, just too literal-minded. 
Of course, there is nothing wrong with the sentence resulting from the above emendation, but it does not invalidate the topic sentence. 

In the suggested image, instead of looking at patchy shadows on the ground (why look there at all?) look through the scene at eye level. Is there not a light area at the centre of the background? Now look to the middle distance at the same level. Is there not a darker area there, between foreground and background, clearly contrasting with the light? That is the shade, the shaded space in the air above the ground and beneath the trees, and it is roughly semi-circular as the eye looks in. Umbrellas are roughly semi-circular. That one shared property on its own - being roughly semi-circular - is all that is needed to make the metaphor by which the shade is said to form an umbrella. It forms a rough umbrella shape. Job done._


----------



## Chasint

Andygc said:


> Biffo, I don't assume shade can't make an umbrella, I know it can't...


That is what the word "to assume" means

*assume* /əˈsjuːm/vb (transitive)

(may take a clause as object) *to take for granted*; *accept without proof*; suppose

You are assuming (stating without proof) that you are right.  I happen to agree with your premise. However I am making an attempt to understand the other point of view rather than simply denying it. It does after all represent the opinion of some very intelligent people on this thread. I am genuinely trying to see if I can understand something that I find difficult to accept.


----------



## Andygc

Biffo said:


> You are assuming (stating without proof) that you are right.


No, I am not assuming (accepting without proof). You are misusing the definition you quote. I am making a statement based on a combination of experiment and logic - based on proof. I have shone a light on my umbrella and it cast a shadow making an area of shade. Try as I might, I could not get the shade to make an umbrella. Every time I put the umbrella away not only was no new umbrella created, but the shade itself disappeared. Analysing my experimental results, I concluded that umbrellas can make shade, but shade can't make umbrellas. I recognise that this experimental outcome must be duplicated by other researchers before it can be accepted as being validated (proved), but no doubt other forum members will take up this challenge.


----------



## Chasint

Andygc said:


> No, I am not assuming (accepting without proof). You are misusing the definition you quote. I am making a statement based on a combination of experiment and logic - based on proof. I have shone a light on my umbrella and it cast a shadow making an area of shade. Try as I might, I could not get the shade to make an umbrella. Every time I put the umbrella away not only was no new umbrella created, but the shade itself disappeared. Analysing my experimental results, I concluded that umbrellas can make shade, but shade can't make umbrellas. I recognise that this experimental outcome must be duplicated by other researchers before it can be accepted as being validated (proved), but no doubt other forum members will take up this challenge.


I understand perfectly and agree with you. That was my initial position. However, what is at issue is not physics nor even how things are represented in terms of images on a page.  Some people clearly think that 'shade' can make an umbrella. This depends vitally on which definition of 'shade' we use. I have tried to elicit this from the shadists but have not yet received a consistent answer. I live in hopes.


----------



## perpend

Well, Biffo, I've been called a lot of things in my life, but I've never been called a "shadist". I mean really---the audacity.

But, anyway, the shadists have set up camp under that old hickory tree, whose shade forms a nice umbrella, to keep our skin from getting fried. We have hickory nuts, of course, but also, assorted cheeses and a nice pinot noir. Come by, if you dare.



I have to reread some of the posts, but at a quick read, I think you are getting the "shady side", Biffo.

It all reminds me also of that question: _When a leafy tree falls in a forest, does the shade that it is no longer forming (its gestalt) affect the undergrowth?_


----------



## AngelEyes

If it makes men suffer, I'll happily become a shadist - in at least fifty shades of shadowed grey, creating a protective umbrella.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wangqh2696122 said:


> _<< --- *Metaphor: leafy umbrella or leafy sheet?* --- >>_
> 
> Which metaphor is more suitable in this case? Thank you in advance!
> Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a ____ over the road.


I don't see how shade can form either an umbrella or a sheet.

Umbrellas, or even sheets, at a pinch, can provide shade.

I suspect that the writer said to himself that the trees were so thick that they shaded the road even at midday and then one thing led to another.

Words can take on a life of their own.  The word _shade_ seems to have beguiled him.


----------



## perpend

Thomas Tompion said:


> I suspect that the writer said to himself that the trees were so thick that they shaded the road even at midday and then one thing led to another.
> 
> Words can take on a life of their own.  The word _shade_ seems to have beguiled him.



"suspect" is like "assume" and you know what that means, Thomas.

Who(m) was "beguiled"? Come again?


----------



## Andygc

AngelEyes said:


> If it makes men suffer, I'll happily become a shadist - in at least fifty shades of shadowed grey, creating a protective umbrella.


That's an equally odd metaphor. I haven't read Fifty Shades of Grey, but my understanding is that it was the gullible young woman who suffered, not the sadistic older man.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Of course it might not be an metaphor at all, for we all know a shade can provide shade: an umbrella (a sun-shade) may provide a shaded area.

Either way, the writer seems to have lost himself in his own mental picture.


----------



## perpend

Thomas Tompion said:


> Either way, the writer seems to have lost himself in his own mental picture.



Is that a judgment of wrong-being, or is that an acknowledgement of good fiction?


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> ... that a dreadful piece of writing can attract so much discussion. I suppose that just goes to demonstrate how badly it is written.





Thomas Tompion said:


> the writer seems to have lost himself in his own mental picture.


It is sad. Unfortunately, though, he is not the only one.

Waiting for the End of the World  By Andrew Taylor
_The shaft above the grill curved away, presumably up to the courtyard. It made a dog's leg, which partly explained why it allowed so little light to filter down._ 

Obviously, even with modern miniaturised bio-engineering, the process of making a dog's leg must get in the way of the light. All the same, Taylor evidently fails to appreciate that a mere shaft does not have the capacity to make anything. Even if it could, there is another difficulty, because a dog's leg is often in motion (even when the dog is asleep).

The Florence Times June 1, 1954
_The troops formed a horseshoe in the yard and an honor guard from Troop 66 carried out the flag ceremony._

This writer has somehow overlooked the key fact that the troops are not on the underside of a horse's hoof.


----------



## perpend

Thanks, "shadist", that thou art, wandle.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> Waiting for the End of the World  By Andrew Taylor
> _The shaft above the grill curved away, presumably up to the courtyard. It made a dog's leg, which partly explained why it allowed so little light to filter down._
> 
> Obviously, even with modern miniaturised bio-engineering, the process of making a dog's leg must get in the way of the light. All the same, Taylor evidently fails to appreciate that a mere shaft does not have the capacity to make anything. Even if it could, there is another difficulty, because a dog's leg is often in motion (even when the dog is asleep)[...]


I'm not very clear why we are considering this piece of writing.

Andrew Taylor is saying that as he looks up from the grill the shaft makes a dogleg (not *a dog's leg*: he has a poor editor).  A dogleg is a sharp bend, and the shaft with a sharp bend did not allow the light to filter down - a straight shaft would have allowed the light to pass.  Is that such an outrageous personification?

I'm not saying it's great writing and there's the error of *dog's leg* for *dogleg*, but it doesn't evoke for me a vision of "modern miniaturised bio-engineering".

Where's the similarity between this and the topic sentence?


----------



## Andygc

And, Thomas, the word "horseshoe" has long been used to describe a shape. In wandle's example there's no shade at all. If that was Florence in Italy in June, they could have done with some shade, whatever its shape. This example could only be a parallel to the topic of the thread if the writer claimed that the horseshoe created the troops like the shade purported to create the umbrella.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> Where's the similarity between this and the topic sentence?


The similarity is that between 'made a dog's leg' and 'formed an umbrella'. Likewise with 'formed a horseshoe'.

Each conveys an idea of shape by means of a metaphorical expression, which, as I have tried to indicate, does not bear literal interpretation.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> The similarity is that between 'made a dog's leg' and 'formed an umbrella'. Likewise with 'formed a horseshoe'.
> 
> Each conveys an idea of shape by means of a metaphorical expression, which, as I have tried to indicate, does not bear literal interpretation.


I don't think any of us has a problem understanding what a metaphor is. The validity of any metaphor comes into question when the willing reader is unable to produce a corresponding mental picture. I can imagine a group of people forming  a horseshoe. Unfortunately, try as I might, I cannot conjure up the requisite picture of shade forming an umbrella. For me the metaphor fails. I willing to accept the failure as my own and that is why I am trying to understand.

I still haven't heard from anyone precisely which part of the scene constitutes the umbrella-shaped shade. The nearest I have got so far is that the underneath of the leaves are more shaded than their upper surfaces. By interpolation I can imagine these under-surfaces forming a rough umbrella shape. However the tree would have to be up a particular shape with a very thin layer of leaves at the top rather than the typical tree whose leaves are distributed in an up-and-down direction as well as horizontally.

I think that a metaphor that generates as much dissension as this one has cannot be considered a 'good' metaphor.


----------



## perpend

Biffo said:


> I think that a metaphor that generates as much dissension as this one has cannot be considered a 'good' metaphor.



See now, I think the opposite. I think a metaphor creating such dissension is a great one, causing the reader to be sucked in, with wonder.

There's nothing wrong with the metaphor.


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> I still haven't heard from anyone precisely which part of the scene constitutes the umbrella-shaped shade.


I thought I had explained it in post 46, illustrated it in post 66 and explained it even more in post 87.


> The nearest I have got so far is that the underneath of the leaves are more shaded than their upper surfaces. By interpolation I can imagine these under-surfaces forming a rough umbrella shape. However the tree would have to be up a particular shape with a very thin layer of leaves at the top rather than the typical tree whose leaves are distributed in an up-and-down direction as well as horizontally.


Why 'the tree'? There must be at least two trees, probably two rows of trees, which, from the viewpoint of those driving towards them, create an umbrella shape over the road. The region beneath the arching branches is shaded. That piece of space over the road and under the trees is the shade. Being contiguous with the underside of the arching branches, it too must be umbrella-shaped. QED.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> ...Why 'the tree'? There must be at least two trees, probably two rows of trees, which, from the viewpoint of those driving towards them, create an umbrella shape over the road. The region beneath the arching branches is shaded. That piece of space over the road and under the trees is the shade. Being contiguous with the underside of the arching branches, it too must be umbrella-shaped. QED.


Now I am both grateful and puzzled.

You have laid out clearly your point of view but I can make neither head nor tail of it. Why must there be two rows of trees? Why even two trees? Nevertheless I shall take that as gospel.

Let me analyse what you have said.

_The region beneath the arching branches is shaded._   I can agree with that.

_That piece of space over the road and under the trees is the shade._ I can accept that as your definition. Perfectly understandable.

_Being contiguous with the underside of the arching branches, it too must be umbrella-shaped. _ This is where I don't get it. The upper, let's say, inch of the piece of space under the trees, could be umbrella shaped, I agree. However, without that qualification, the space extends all the way down to the ground. It can be considered to delineate a 'solid' volume. Maybe if I upturned an umbrella, filled it with plaster-of-paris, let it dry and then put it the right way up again, I would get something approaching what I understand you to be saying. However an umbrella filled with plaster-of-paris (or any other substance) does not immediately spring to mind when I read the original sentence.

I am trying to understand - really! 



P.S. Do other _shadists__ shade-lovers_ share wandle's understanding? Must there be two rows of trees, etc.?


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> Why must there be two rows of trees? Why even two trees?





wangqh2696122 said:


> _Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a ____ over the road_.





wandle said:


> The immediate context is as follows:
> _Smith drove his pickup a couple of miles along the winding road to get to the other side of the lake. This road, in the truest sense, was a path wagging in the heavy wooded area. Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella over the road and it suddenly seemed late in the evening._


The topic sentence says 'trees'. That must be at least two. As they are driving through a heavily wooded area, the probability is that there are trees along both sides of the road. In fact, since the shade is such that it creates the impression of late evening, it seems clear that there are overarching trees on both sides all the way along, like this.


> Maybe if I upturned an umbrella, filled it with plaster-of-paris, let it dry and then put it the right way up again ...


Please do not give yourself a headache on my account. Just visualise the space under the arching branches, seen from the viewpoint of the approaching driver.


----------



## Andygc

The text is "the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella". That still makes no sense whatsoever. Shade doesn't have leaves. I'm perfectly happy that the trees formed a leafy umbrella. I find the metaphor, as written, ludicrous. The attempts to explain it are, from my point of view, equally ludicrous. A meeting of minds here is as likely as in the thread: You've got another 'thing' / 'think' coming?


----------



## Chasint

Andygc said:


> The text is "the shade of trees formed a leafy umbrella". That still makes no sense whatsoever. Shade doesn't have leaves...


"...Shade doesn't have leaves..."

Yes that's the clincher for me.


----------



## Loob

Wangqh omitted to tell us in post 1 that this is part of a multiple-choice exercise: see this Chinese website, where the second paragraph is 





> Smith drove his pickup (小货车) a couple of miles along the 　6　 road to get to the other side of the lake. This road, in the truest sense, was a path wagging in the heavy 　7　 area. Even with the sun still high in the cloudless sky, the 　8　 of trees formed a leafy  　9　 over the road and it suddenly seemed 　10　 in the evening.


The options for blank no 8 are _A trunks B shadow C shade D shape_, with C the recommended answer; the options for 9 are _A hat B umbrella C sheet D overcoat - _recommended answer B.

The exercise text contains a number of oddities - not least that "wagging" path.

It seems to have been based, somewhat loosely, on a passage from a book called Careless Whispers, by Carlton Stowers. The original reads: 





> ... Even with the sun still high in a cloudless sky, the shelter of trees  formed a leafy umbrella over the road and made the route they were  taking so shadowed that it suddenly seemed near twilight.


My vote goes to this being another poorly-constructed question, of a type that we come across here far too often.

----

EDIT: I've just spotted that wandle posted a link to the same Chinese website in post 59 - sorry, wandle!  

(That doesn't affect my conclusion that it's a poorly-constructed question, though.)


----------



## Chasint

That's very useful information.

Unfortunately "...the  shelter of trees formed a leafy umbrella..." doesn't work as a metaphor either. Not for me anyway.


----------



## AngelEyes

Andy, Ana didn't so much suffer, as did she mature and grow as a woman in discovering herself. That's part of what men don't understand about this love story - much of hers were growing pains. And that brings it to Christian, the "sadistic, older man," if you call _twenty-eight _old, and if you call giving a woman the most transcending sexual pleasure she's ever known, sadistic. 

And he suffered the most because he had to adapt and change everything about himself he'd come to believe. When you really analyze the story as a whole, she's the dominant one, because he's the one who had to surrender his vulnerability and control.

Thank you for your kind remark about my sentence. 

We were given two choices at the beginning of this thread, which were from a test paper, apparently. One didn't make sense to me; the other one may have been a weak option, but it's what we had to go on. I think it would have been more enlightening to discuss Ana & Christian.

A metaphor has a certain leniency to it, I think. There's an element of whimsy that every writer chooses to use. Our differences of opinion seem to stem in how far from technical perfection you want to stray. At this point, every ounce of spontaneity has been sucked out of the subject. 

Even as I end this, I can feel the reaction to this statement about the technical elements being lost in the weak and stupid choice of giving leniency to a metaphor. But like Ana & Christian, once you refuse to consider the romance of whimsy, some readers will feel cheated out of an overwhelming release. And others will get off on the fact everything was done by the book.


----------



## Chasint

AngelEyes said:


> ... like Ana & Christian, once you refuse to consider the romance of whimsy, some readers will feel cheated out of an overwhelming release. And others will get off on the fact everything was done by the book.


I like a bit of poetry and a nice metaphor now and again. However I think a little quality-control does not go amiss.
_ 
Good Heavens! the Tay Bridge is blown down, And a passenger train from Edinburgh, Which fill’d all the peoples hearts with sorrow, And made them for to turn pale_
*The Tay Bridge Disaster - William Mcgonagall*
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disaster

This produces in me an image of a train filling hearts with sorrow. I can understand it but it's a rather clumsy construction.

I put it on a par with shade forming an umbrella.  It's possible to gloss over it but there is still an unwelcome hiccup as one reads.


----------



## AngelEyes

Biffo, this construction bothers me, too. 

The metaphor we've been discussing, not so much. Mainly because an area of shade segues into an area of shade from some other source very easily in my brain. I don't hiccup at all.


----------



## Chasint

AngelEyes said:


> ... I don't hiccup at all.


I do. Maybe it's  the vodka!


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> EDIT: I've just spotted that wandle posted a link to the same Chinese website in post 59 - sorry, wandle!


No need to apologise. What a farce, though: all this toing and froing over a text which has been carefully modified from English to Chinglish by some inspired educator, as we can see by comparing the full passage in *Loob's* two links. The ridiculous thing is that after finding the test page I made a decision to look no further for the source. Had I done so, and seen the various points where sense and relevance have been edited out, I would not have wasted any more time on it.

Does that mean I withdraw my defence of the bastardised expression 'the shade of the trees formed a leafy umbrella'? I think not. 'Formed' can mean 'took the shape of'. 'A leafy umbrella' (where the umbrella is the shade, not the leaves) is not more of a stretch than 'the condemned cell' (where it is the prisoner, not the cell, that is condemned).


----------



## perpend

I agree. Even if the original was botched, the topic in this thread has revolved around the phrase: "_the shade of the trees formed a leafy umbrella_".

I still give the metaphor a:


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> 'A leafy umbrella' (where the umbrella is the shade, not the leaves) is not more of a stretch than 'the condemned cell' (where it is the prisoner, not the cell, that is condemned).


I'm sorry, I don't think I can let you get away with that. Even if I shared your viewpoint entirely about the original sentence, the argument you have just made does not hold water.

Allow me to analyse what you just said:

_'A leafy umbrella'... is not more of a stretch than 'the condemned cell'_.   I don't think anyone would disagree with that. In fact I find it less of a stretch.

Where the illogic creeps in is between the brackets: _"(where the umbrella is the shade, not the leaves)" _ and _"(where it is the prisoner, not the cell, that is condemned)"_
Where is the parallel between those two comments? In the first case you have *three* nouns, _umbrella, shade and leaves_ plus the verb_ to be_  In the second you have *two* nouns _prisoner and cell_ plus the verb _to condemn_.

Why do I complain about that? Because in the first, you have sneaked in the word "shade" from nowhere. You hadn't mentioned it anywhere else in your argument here. You might as well say "It is the prisoner not the cell that is human."  No-one ever claimed otherwise.


----------



## Cagey

The question has been shown to be incapable of resolution, if resolution requires a consensus.  

The discussion is drifting, and I am closing the thread. I realize that any point at which the thread is closed is arbitrary, and inevitably deprives people of the ability to respond as they may like.  I apologize for that. 

 However, the various positions have been laid out in some detail, and anyone who sees the thread can read them over and adopt the view that makes the most sense to them, no matter who has the last word. 

I thank everyone for their contributions. 

Cagey, moderator.


----------

