Re: Hot, Cold, and Temperature

Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>>
> > - why should a scalar concept be oriented one way and
> > not the other one? For ex, for a temperature scale,
> > why should "cold" be at the lowest end, and "hot" at
> > the highest?
> Sheer history [of the Celsius scale etc.]
Never thought of it before, but that oughta indicate people didn't
speak of "high" and "low" temperatures 'fore the 18th century?
<<<

.. and indeed, if this is the sole reason, they would not have spoken
of 'heating up' or 'cooling down'.  It seems to me that the use of
'up' and 'down' in this position in English sheds an interesting light
on the S7/Ithkuil scalar directionality controversy. Compare (examples
ripped shamelessly from 'The Man Who Tasted Shapes' by Richard
Cytowic):

- waking up / falling asleep
- on top of things / at the bottom of the pile
- things are looking up / things are going downhill
- high-minded / depth of despair

At one level, the pervasiveness of this way of thinking in English
idioms makes me think that the choice Celsius was induced to make was
not merely motivated by historical precedent.  At another level, is
this an example of a way in which English orientates its scalar
metaphors in parallel with each other?  If so, is this specific to
English, or are there actually deep-seated cognitive reasons to align
such scales along directional axes?

Jonathan.

[reply to jonathan underscore knibb at hotmail dot com]
--
'O dear white children casual as birds,
Playing among the ruined languages...'
Auden/Britten, 'Hymn to St. Cecilia'

Reply