Pedants' Paradise

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The return of Lord Baker to the airwaves this morning. Subject - education.

That man is simply dreadful.
I remember all his patronising drivel about wanting to do his best for the "chuldren", and he then went on to do the best for himself.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On another subject, I get very annoyed when people talk about "slowing UP".
You can speed up, but surely you can only slow DOWN.
The only exception I can think of is old people, who used to slow down as they got older. But now they get faster by driving mobility scooters like hired assassins on our otherwise "slow" pavements.

[jean]

On another subject, I get very annoyed when people talk about "slowing UP".
You can speed up, but surely you can only slow DOWN.

But why?

'Up'and 'down' originally indicate direction, and have nothing at all to say about speed. Anything we add to their basic meaning when we use them metaphorically is pure convention. Quite often they become almost interchangable - cf. close up/close down, break up/break down.

[Panjandrum]

But why?

'Up'and 'down' originally indicate direction, and have nothing at all to say about speed. Anything we add to their basic meaning when we use them metaphorically is pure convention. Quite often they become almost interchangable - cf. close up/close down, break up/break down.

It's a wonder anyone dares to open their mouths in your household EA! They must constantly be on tenterhooks that you will break into an apoplectic fit and spiflicate them at every syntactical faux pas.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But why?

'Up'and 'down' originally indicate direction, and have nothing at all to say about speed. Anything we add to their basic meaning when we use them metaphorically is pure convention. Quite often they become almost interchangable - cf. close up/close down, break up/break down.

Why? Because they are opposites.

It's a wonder anyone dares to open their mouths in your household EA! They must constantly be on tenterhooks that you will break into an apoplectic fit and spiflicate them at every syntactical faux pas.

If only that were true. My daughter continues to us the word "like" as a substitute for "ums" and "erms", as well as a substitute for other words she might use when in different company.
And as for the children I teach, when they say "I'm sat" or "I was stood"... Poor things. No wonder they say, "You're supposed to teach us music, not English.

[jean]

Why? Because they are opposites.

Only when they are being used in their original, literal, physical sense.

Look at the other examples I gave .

And think about it.

[scottycelt]

If only that were true. My daughter continues to us the word "like" as a substitute for "ums" and "erms", as well as a substitute for other words she might use when in different company.

You have my heartfelt sympathy, Eine Alpensinfonie ... does your daughter end every simple statement as if it were a question, as well?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And think about it.

I did think about it. Hence the significant time lapse between reading your post and responding to it. Words are a form of communication and it makes little sense to say one thing when you mean the opposite. Hence "different from" is better than "different to".

The only "opposite" that I can think of that deserves consideration is flammable/inflammable.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You have my heartfelt sympathy, Eine Alpensinfonie ... does your daughter end every simple statement as if it were a question, as well?

Every time.

[MrGongGong]

But why?

'Up'and 'down' originally indicate direction, and have nothing at all to say about speed. Anything we add to their basic meaning when we use them metaphorically is pure convention. Quite often they become almost interchangable - cf. close up/close down, break up/break down.

surely its ALL "pure convention" ? (he said in an INFLAMMABLE tone ?)

I'm often intrigued by the almost universal (can I say that ? or is it like "almost exactly" ? ) confusion in music between pitch and volume as we use the word "Higher" for both when sometimes we mean frequency and sometimes amplitude !
I was once running a music improvisation session with some students where the student playing the piano had never done so before. So when I said "could you maybe play a bit higher as its all sounding very muddy she stopped playing on the white notes and just played the black ones ! which is , of course, totally logical.

I have a vague recollection of an ethnomusicology lecture that talked about a group for whom the word "High" corresponded to social status so that "High" notes were sung my men and "Low" ones by women.......... (just like CE ? )

[Serial_Apologist]

Every time.

Shouldn't that be "Every time?"?

[jean]

Words are a form of communication...

But do you have any difficulty in knowing what someone means when they say that something is slowing [a process] up? Of course you don't!

...and it makes little sense to say one thing when you mean the opposite.

In their metaphorical senses, the two aren't necessarily opposites.

Hence "different from" is better than "different to".

Only if you're thinking about different as the present participle of the Latin differo, which most people aren't.

For most people, different is an English adjective indicating that something is not the same as something else.

Do you insist on averse from, too? You should!

The only "opposite" that I can think of that deserves consideration is flammable/inflammable.

The apparent peculiarity here is the result of two quite separate Latin prefixes in-, one negating the word it's prefixed to, the other meaning towards.

This makes inflammable ambiguous, and it's better not used (as those that decide these things have now decided).

[Serial_Apologist]

I was once running a music improvisation session with some students where the student playing the piano had never done so before. So when I said "could you maybe play a bit higher as its all sounding very muddy she stopped playing on the white notes and just played the black ones !

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've always felt that the words of "Frère Jacques" are wrong. Surely the familiar "tu" should be used here, rather than the the more formal "vous?
It wouldn't scan too well though.

[Nick Armstrong]

I've always felt that the words of "Frère Jacques" are wrong. Surely the familiar "tu" should be used here, rather than the the more formal "vous?
It wouldn't scan too well though.

Isn't it brother in the sense of monks...? Hence formality among the ranks of the Brethren...