Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I always thought that by saying "going down to Salt Lake" I was doing so in terms of elevation. I always say I'm going down somewhere when the elevation is lower than where I'm at. I say "going up to Park City" and "going up to Manti", but if I was in Park City, I would say "going down to Manti" and "going down to Provo" etc. regardless of location on a map. Perhaps "going up to campus" is a better example ... direction doesn't play a role in this at all for me, but if I need to climb up a mountain to get there, I'm going up. If I'm on the "Y", I'm going to go down to campus.

However, this seems to only hold true in short distances. I would still say "going down to South America" or "going up to the North Pole" regardless of the actual elevation of the place. So, I guess I also have the "North is up"-centric view of the world.

This question reminded me of that scene in City Slickers 2, where Daniel Stern says "North on a map is always up, so ... we should go up."

I think it's possible for both elevation and geography to come into play when you're talking about "up" and "down." I also seem to remember reading a language log post where up and down referred to upstream and downstream, maybe in an area of Montana. (And the "down" in "Downeast Maine" refers to downwind, I'm told.)

yeah, doesn't Nephi do the same thing (saying "down" to mean elevation)?

Yeah! That's what my thoughts were too. But driving below the library? Is there really a tunnel? =]

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Yeah! That's what my thoughts were too. But driving below the library? Is there really a tunnel? =]

Actually . . .

Let me rephrase. Is there a tunnel open enough to people that the average student may drive a car through it? But thanks katya, I sniggered when I read that.