Personification → a literary device in which the author speaks of or describes an animal, object, or idea as if it were a person. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Personification → a literary device in which the author speaks of or describes an animal, object, or idea as if it were a person.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Literary critic and Malayalam writer, who has won the Kerala State’s highest literary honour,’Ezhuthachan award-2010’?....

QA->The Islamist Hamas group has recently appointed its first spokeswoman, a 23-year-old who used to live in Britain and speaks with a Yorkshire accent. Who is she?....

QA->One who fluently speaks many languages....

QA->One who speaks two languages....

QA->He speaks. English language fluently ....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below: Rohan speaks about seven different countries viz., Egypt, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, France and Austria in a seminar held on seven different days of the same week starting from Monday and ending on Sunday but not necessarily in the same order. Thus on one day Rohan speaks about only one country. Rohan speaks about Japan on Friday. He speaks about Egypt on one of the days after Japan. He speaks only about two countries between Egypt and China. He speaks about only one country between China and France. He speaks about France on one of the days before he speaks about China. He speaks only about one country between Japan and Malaysia. He speaks about Austria on one of the days before he speaks about China but not on Monday.Rohan speaks about which country on Thursday?
....

MCQ->Personification → a literary device in which the author speaks of or describes an animal, object, or idea as if it were a person.....

MCQ-> I think that it would be wrong to ask whether 50 years of India's Independence are an achievement or a failure. It would be better to see things as evolving. It's not an either-or question. My idea of the history of India is slightly contrary to the Indian idea.India is a country that, in the north, outside Rajasthan, was ravaged and intellectually destroyed to a large extent by the invasions that began in about AD 1000 by forces and religions that India had no means of understanding.The invasions are in all the schoolbooks. But I don't think that people understand that every invasion, every war, every campaign, was accompanied by slaughter, a slaughter always of the most talented people in the country. So these wars, apart from everything else led to a tremendous intellectual depletion of the country.I think that in the British period, and in the 50 years after the British period, there has been a kind of regrouping or recovery, a very slow revival of energy and intellect. This isn't an idea that goes with the vision of the grandeur of old India and all that sort of rubbish. That idea is a great simplification and it occurs because it is intellectually, philosophically easier for Indians to manage.What they cannot manage, and what they have not yet come to terms with, is that ravaging of all the north of India by various conquerors. That was ruined not by the act of nature, but by the hand of man. It is so painful that few Indians have begun to deal with it. It is much easier to deal with British imperialism. That is a familiar topic, in India and Britain. What is much less familiar is the ravaging of India before the British.What happened from AD 1000 onwards, really, is such a wound that it is almost impossible to face. Certain wounds are so bad that they can't be written about. You deal with that kind of pain by hiding from it. You retreat from reality. I do not think, for example, that the Incas of Peru or the native people of Mexico have ever got over their defeat by the Spaniards. In both places the head was cut off. I think the pre-British ravaging of India was as bad as that.In the place of knowledge of history, you have various fantasies about the village republic and the Old Glory. There is one big fantasy that Indians have always found solace in: about India having the capacity for absorbing its conquerors. This is not so. India was laid low by its conquerors.I feel the past 150 years have been years of every kind of growth. I see the British period and what has continued after that as one period. In that time, there has been a very slow intellectual recruitment. I think every Indian should make the pilgrimage to the site of the capital of the Vijayanagar empire, just to see what the invasion of India led to. They will see a totally destroyed town. Religious wars are like that. People who see that might understand what the centuries of slaughter and plunder meant. War isn't a game. When you lost that kind of war, your town was destroyed, the people who built the towns were destroyed. You are left with a headless population.That's where modern India starts from. The Vijayanagar capital was destroyed in 1565. It is only now that the surrounding region has begun to revive. A great chance has been given to India to start up again, and I feel it has started up again. The questions about whether 50 years of India since Independence have been a failure or an achievement are not the questions to ask. In fact, I think India is developing quite marvelously, people thought — even Mr Nehru thought — that development and new institutions in a place like Bihar, for instance, would immediately lead to beauty. But it doesn't happen like that. When a country as ravaged as India, with all its layers of cruelty, begins to extend justice to people lower down, it's a very messy business. It's not beautiful, it's extremely messy. And that's what you have now, all these small politicians with small reputations and small parties. But this is part of growth, this is part of development. You must remember that these people, and the people they represent, have never had rights before.When the oppressed have the power to assert themselves, they will behave badly. It will need a couple of generations of security, and knowledge of institutions, and the knowledge that you can trust institutions — it will take at least a couple of generations before people in that situation begin to behave well. People in India have known only tyranny. The very idea of liberty is a new idea. The rulers were tyrants. The tyrants were foreigners. And they were proud of being foreign. There's a story that anybody could run and pull a bell and the emperor would appear at his window and give justice. This is a child's idea of history — the slave's idea of the ruler's mercy. When the people at the bottom discover that they hold justice in their own hands, the earth moves a little. You have to expect these earth movements in India. It will be like this for a hundred years. But it is the only way. It's painful and messy and primitive and petty, but it’s better that it should begin. It has to begin. If we were to rule people according to what we think fit, that takes us back to the past when people had no voices. With self-awareness all else follows. People begin to make new demands on their leaders, their fellows, on themselves.They ask for more in everything. They have a higher idea of human possibilities. They are not content with what they did before or what their fathers did before. They want to move. That is marvellous. That is as it should be. I think that within every kind of disorder now in India there is a larger positive movement. But the future will be fairly chaotic. Politics will have to be at the level of the people now. People like Nehru were colonial — style politicians. They were to a large extent created and protected by the colonial order. They did not begin with the people. Politicians now have to begin with the people. They cannot be too far above the level of the people. They are very much part of the people. It is important that self-criticism does not stop. The mind has to work, the mind has to be active, there has to be an exercise of the mind. I think it's almost a definition of a living country that it looks at itself, analyses itself at all times. Only countries that have ceased to live can say it's all wonderful.The central thrust of the passage is that
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the question.Once upon a time in a village, there lived six blind men. In spite of their blindness they had managed to educate themselves Seeking to expand their knowledge they decided to visit a zoo and try out their skills in recognizing animals by their touch. The first animal they came across, as soon as they entered the zoo was an elephant.As the first man approched the elephant, the elephant waved its trunk, and the man felt something brush past him. Managing to hold on to it, and found something long and moving. He jumped back in alarm, shouting "Move away ! This is a snake !" Meanwhile ,the second man had moved closer, and walked right near its legs. As the man touched the thick, cylindrical¬shaped legs, he called out "Do not worry. These are just four trees here. There is acertainly no snake !" The third man was curious hearing the other two, and moved forward. As he walked towards the elephant, he felt his hand touch one of the tusks. Feeling the smooth, sharp ivory tusk, the man cried out " Be careful ! There is a sharp spear here". The fourth man cautiously walked up behind the elephant and felt its swinging tail. "It's just a rope ! he said. The fifth man had meanwhile reached out and was touching the huge ears of the animal. "I think all of you have lost your sense of touch !" he said. "This is nothing but a huge fan!" The sixth man did not want to be left out. As he walked towards the elephant, he bumped into the massive body, and he exclaimed, "Hey ! This is just a huge mud wall ! There is no animal at all !" All six of them were convinced that they were right, and began arguing amongst themselves.The zoo keeper returned to the elephant and saw each of them shouting at the top of their voice ! "Quiet" he shouted out and when they had calmed down, he asked, "Why are all of you shouting and arguing in this manner ?" They replied, "sir, as you can see, we all are blind. We came here to expand our knowledge. We sensed an animal here and tried to get an idea of its appearance by feeling it. However, we are not able to arrive at a consensus over its appearance, and hence are arguing. Can you please help us and tell us which of us is right" ?The zoo keeper laughed before answering "My dear men, each of you has touched just one portion of the animal. The animal you see is neither a snake, nor any of other things you have mentioned. The animal in front on you is an elephant !" As the men, bowed their head ashamed of the scence they had created, the zoo keeper said, "My dear men, this is a huge animal and luckily, it is tame. It stood by calmly as each of you touched it. You are extremely lucky that it stayed calm even during your argument, for if it had got angry, it would have trampled all of you to death !" He continued further , "It is also important to learn to share and pool your knowledge .Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, if you had tried to put all your observations together, you might have had an idea of the animal as a whole ! Also, when you cannot see the entire truth, it is better to go to someone who does know the complete truth, rather than guess about small parts of it. Such half¬knowledge is not only useless, but also dangerous. If you had come directly to me, I would have helped you identify all the animals without putting you in danger !" The six men apologized to the zoo keeper, and assured him that they had learnt their lesson. From now on they would seek true knowledge from qualified people, and would seek true knowledge from qualified people, and would also try to work together as a team so that they could learn moreWhich part of the elephant resembled a big fan ?
....

MCQ-> If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though non-economical folk. Like serious talk anywhere — among boat desingers and baseball fans, say — the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist’s favourite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech-metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority.Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an ‘invisible hand’ and the organization of work as a ‘production function’ and his coefficients as being ‘significant’, as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language.If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks.The paying of attention to one’s audience is called ‘rhetoric’, a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president’s ‘heated rhetoric’ in a press conference or the ‘mere rhetoric’ to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language: inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse.The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of ‘results’ or a stater of ‘conclusions’ free of rhetoric — speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn’t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honoured, en-Nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech.Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners whey they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office or the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful: to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship.The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist’s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve.Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, ”those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations do it.According to the passage, which of the following is the best set of reasons for which one needs to ‘look hard’ at an economist’s language?A. Economists accomplish a great deal through their language.B. Economics is an opinion-based subject.C. Economics has a great impact on other’s lives.D. Economics is damaging.
....