Who else gets slightly annoyed when people don't use the correct map-relative direction (up->north, down->south, over->east/west) when talking about large-scale geography? From Seattle I can head up to Vancouver, down to Portland, or over to Spokane. Period.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I don't feel very strongly about it, but I have been very charmed on the couple of occasions I've heard Australian visitors use the inverse convention. <3
(no subject)
no subject
It's not helped by North not being quite where we think it is, on our main landmass.
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Or even worse, I get confused by left and right, so when I ask directions I ask for north, south, east and west directions. Some people will simply substitute east for right and west for left, whichever direction you are going.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I head out to Spokane, since it's less of an urban core than Seattle. When I lived in Iowa, I would drive "in" to Chicago. I might be introspecting wrong here, but I can't think of any instances in which I would say "over" for a large-scale trip. Maybe if I were crossing an ocean or something, or it was a trip I made frequently/casually.
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
tangentially, on spatial metaphors
no subject
or as pylyshyn points out, the signature property of representations is the possibility of their misrepresenting, and a layout can only be a "map" if it is interpreted by some process that allows for the possibility of a misinterpretation.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject