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."
#50681 Sense of direction
Moderator: Marduk
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.)
-
Giovanni Schwartz
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:41 pm
-
Giovanni Schwartz
- Posts: 3396
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:41 pm