Ok, what's this called?

[Bob t. Lawyer]

For some reason this is bugging me today.  I understand that the "leg" of a chair is not really a leg, in that it doesn't have feet, isn't attached to a body, etc. and so is a metaphor.  But, at the same time, the real word for the object is a "leg".  So... is it still a metaphor?  Help a poor biochemist out.

[rivka]

I think it's just an alternate definition. Then again, in Victorian England table and chair legs (like human ones) were referred to as "limbs."

[Jonathon]

Well, yes, it is an alternate definition of the word leg, but that definition arose from a simple metaphor. A metaphor involves using a word or phrase to describe something different but analogous. The word originally just referred to those limbs that you use for walking, but then it was extended to refer to anything that was like a leg.

But we don't really think of such things as metaphors, because that's just a normal definition of the word now.

[Bob t. Lawyer]

Hmm... I asked a housemate and he went on about it being a figure of catachresis, which is both figurative and literal at the same time, or so say the American Deconstructionalists.  I think the conversation went on from there, and I think I was violated, but at that point I was no longer sure of what was happening.  You do things with words before you refer to the world!

For once, I'm glad to be a biochemist.

Edit:  So it makes sense... I think.  And might I add that I prefer the explanation offered here.  I bet he was just trying to sound smart.  Well, I'll show him I will.

[Jonathon]

Yeah, definitely just trying to sound smart. He used the term "catachresis" completely wrong.

1 : use of the wrong word for the context
2 : use of a forced and especially paradoxical figure of speech (as blind mouths)

There's nothing literal about calling part of a chair a "leg." It's entirely metaphorical. Darn deconstructionists, trying to make everything so complicated . . .