Re: [s-d] [s-b] Mackerel Transfer

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 8, 2008 8:47 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> To "go up in smoke" is idiomatic, to have "your balance to go down" is
> not.
> Up and down is deduced from how we typically graph numerical values--it is
> based from some actual meaning. From where I live, I would say that I'm
> going up to New York or going down to Miami. The meaning of up and down is
> deduced from the way we typically orient our maps where North is up and
> down
> is South even if the Earth happens to be shaped like a torus.
>

Actually, I typically "go up" to Montreal many weekends, even though
Montreal is south-west of where I live. Maybe it's the French idiom kicking
in, but it mainly has to do with the river along which the cities are
located (going upriver or downriver).

Regardless, I was actually writing to point out that, while I'm not sure I
really buy into their arguments (pretty post hoc and speculative if you ask
me), this debate does bring to mind Metaphors We Live By (1980) in which
Lakoff and Johnson argue that up and down (like many other metaphorical
dichotomies) have a physical/cultural basis and are not mere linguistic
constructs. One of the meanings they attribute to this particular opposition
is that up is more and down is less. Whether or not you find it relevant to
this particular case, it does make for some interesting reading:
http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html

Billy Pilgrim
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss