F3 Admissible vs Illicit Metaphors

This paper draws a sharp structural distinction between admissible and illicit metaphors within a standing-conserving descriptive regime. It shows that metaphors are admissible only when the constraint structure they induce preserves role typing, scope, and standing; metaphors that introduce hidden dynamics, ontic surplus, or unauthorized scope transport are shown by exhaustion to be illegitimate. The analysis is eliminative rather than prescriptive: it does not recommend metaphor usage but records the necessary conditions under which metaphor does not collapse admissibility. The treatment is declarative and non-procedural, placing on record the boundary at which metaphor ceases to be a legitimate representational device.