Yvonne Gallagher Sep 17, 2021:

@ Oliver synecdoche and/or metonomy

It's not necessarily about depersonalisation though that is the effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

As for "dictionaries are useful", well yes they are but they don't always give the full picture or include conversational terms. If something is used often enough by native speakers it usually makes it into the dictionary after a few years anyway.

I've heard people (mis)using "cheek to jowl" so not exactly unusual

Peter Simon Sep 15, 2021:

@airmailrpl Also thanks. Only wonder why the US dictionary doesn't have the phrase either with 'to'. So it's a rather informal and new development I suppose. Never had any problem with 'cheek by jowl', thank you so I guess the other correct and more wide-spread phrase would be 'cheek to cheek' as Tony M indicated.

airmailrpl Sep 15, 2021:

cheek to jowl ...cheek by jowl cheek by jowl - Wiktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org › wiki › cheek_by_jowl
Usage notes
The similar expression cheek to cheek implies a cozy, romantic situation, while cheek by jowl implies rather the opposite, being cramped or crowded. cheek by jowl is chiefly British, while cheek to jowl is chiefly American usage.

Peter Simon Sep 15, 2021:

@Tony Thank you!

Tony M Sep 15, 2021:

@ Peter I too ntoiced it, but decided it was a side issue, compared to the more important one of whether or not it was the right metaphor anyway. I think the writer, of seemingly limited EN, was probably misled by the expression 'cheek-to-cheek'

Peter Simon Sep 15, 2021:

Cheek to jowl?? Actually, I'm flummoxed by the fact that only one native, Charlotte Fleming, referred to the correct phrase, 'cheek by jowl', and she also only saying that that would be 'more normal'. Well, as writeaway remarks, 'dictionaries can be very useful', and they all show that 'cheek to jow' doesn't exist instead of using by instead of the to in this case. I do have very strong doubts about 'objectification' having the power to warp idioms so I'd like to ask for your opinion as to how much I'm right in feeling that 'cheek to jowl' is an incorrect form. Thanks in advance.

Oliver Simões (asker) Sep 14, 2021:

Thanks! Thank you all for your answers and feedback. Tony, I like your suggestion of "rubbing shoulders". I'll keep it in mind for another glossary entry. As far as "cheek to jowl", I'll probably try to find a better sentence. It's just for illustration purposes. If you happen to find one, please let me know. :-)

Tony M Sep 14, 2021:

@ Asker I agree with your questioning the imagery in the latter part of the sentence: I don't believe the idiom "cheek to jowl" really fits at all here. It usually means that to people (rarely things) are very close, squeezed together, etc. Soemtimes it even has a connotation of complicity, as in being 'hand in glove with someone'
Here, I think the writer has used the wrong metaphor; something like 'rubbing shoulders' would probably have worked better, to simply say that the place was jam packed with (people in) business suits — which is a shorthand way of describing quite a lot about the bar. Antoher expression used for a crowded place is 'heaving with...'

Tony M Sep 14, 2021:

@ José There is no sense of "combinging very well", and hence your proposition of "very suitable with business suits" is nothing whatever to do with the context here.

David Hollywood Sep 14, 2021:

and I agree that "suits" is derogatory/disparaging

Paulo Melo Sep 13, 2021:

As I know, "suits" is a derorgatory way of referring to executives. Artists, for instance, would say that. So the narrator is describing an establishment full of executives/business people and the fact that he will have to share the place with them, and saying "suits" gives away his distaste for the corporate clientele (so, in a way, he is depersonalizing them).

José Patrício Sep 13, 2021:

Cheek and jowl combine very well in our head, then:
‘the place was very suitable with business suits’