Personification

The adjective 'quiet' is the personification, because a way cannot physically be quiet and so it has been given a human trait.

It's really a synecdoche, since the hand is part of the person who is ACTUALLY doing the searching.

However, if it is in a context which suggests that the hand is working "on its own" without the willful intent of the person, you *could* argue personification. But I wouldn't!

Maybe. A hand is technically part of the person so maybe not, but it also isn't the actual person. I think it depends on how you look at it. I'm currently writing a poem about hands in which I use personification. (His hands danced as he worked over my wounds.. or something like that.)

Dude, I don't think it is personification.
You are referring HIM, not AN OBJECT

Who is "they"? If it is people, then no, it isn't a personification. If it was some other trees or rocks, then yes.

No, resting isn't an exclusively human trait.

The first sentence is imagery because owls can't exactly "float", but neither can humans. The second sentence is not personification because owls can turn their heads and peer down. The only questionable thing is "curiously". Some people believe that animals can be curious and some people don't, so it's personification if you don't believe that animals (owls in this case) can be curious. Otherwise, none of this is personification.

same
!

yes

Yes, it would; the plants in real life wouldn't be able to be actually stressed out.

I don't believe so because the TV is not the one doing the action of looking.

I don't think the person is actually going to give you one of their (Or someone's) hands.

pumpkins can't sit humans can

this is not personification

yes

No it's not

no

No, this is not personification because neither your head or the sin is given a human trait.

Don't know you still need it, but "put not another sin on my head" sounds to be more synecdoche than personification, as the writer is using head to refer to the entire self.

Also, it seems that the writer is not trying to ascribe a human quality to the head, that is he isn't describing the head according to the word "sin."

Does that make sense? If I described the sun as sinful or the trees as sinful, then that'd be using the word "sin" to describe them and directly to humanize them. But if I say, 'let not another sin fall upon this earth," I am not describing the earth as "sinful," nor am I trying to give it a human characteristic to make it feel alive or capable of sin.

But especially, in this case, because the head is meant to refer to one's self, I can't see this as personification, unless the speaker was personifying him/her self, which would require him/her to be something other than human, which could happen in some contexts. Rather they were using a part of something to refer to the whole, meaning synecdoche.

Hope that helped.

Full disclosure: I'm no English professor, I'm no published writer, I'm not even a grad-student or anything like that. I'm just a sophomore in college who likes to think of himself as a writer.

the first is but the second one is more of a metaphor

I'm not sure I agree with the teacher's response to "the cup took a lot of tea," since a person can certainly take something.

"The wind roared" is an example of zoomorphism, where a person or object takes on qualities of animals. Lions roar. People do not typically roar; if they do, it's seen as an animalistic attribute. Zoomorphism is not taught often among literary elements, even though it is a fairly common occurrence in literature. Your child's teacher may not have been aware of the term, and so had trouble explaining why roaring wind is not personification.

Personification *is* giving only HUMAN attributes to non-human things. Notice that the word "person" is within the word itself.

Yes, it is personification because your heart can't talk.