Re: to build a fire
James Hogg
> Hi group,
>
> about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>
>
> Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
> have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps
> an Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or
> perhaps jargon in a particular group? If so which?
It's idiomatic. If it sounds a bit old-fashioned to some people, that
could be because lighting fires is no longer an everyday experience.
It's not specifically American. The OED quotes the English poet Southey:
"Fires are built before the tents."
And Kipling:
"Kim bought a handful of dung-cakes to build a fire."
And a bang up-to-date example from Scotland:
"But she'll no let me build a fire on the kitchen flair."
--
James
Eric Walker
> Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
> have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
> Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
> jargon in a particular group? If so which?
It is commonplace; normally it refers to a fire of wood logs, whether
outdoors or in a fireplace. I presume it derives from the fact that it
is necessary to literally build the log structure if one is to obtain
anything like a decent blaze. And the building is not necessarily
complete when the fire is first lit, because often more fuel is added
afterwards, and, at least to the skilled, that is not simply a matter of
dumping some more wood on (or in) any old whichaway, but of continuing
the "building" process of a proper structure.
There are several ways to approach building a fire, each of which has its
ardent advocates. (There is an old saying that there are three things
that every man alive thinks he can do better than the man currently
working at them: run the country, start a fire, and manage a major-league
ball club.) Just do a Google on "build a fire" and you will get
countless references to sets of directions.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Django Cat
> Hi group,
>
> about the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>
> Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
> have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
> Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
> jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>
> Thank you :)
Not just perfectly idiomatic in British English (I've no idea if
Americans say this), but also the name of a track on the classic 1991
album 'The White Room' by the KLF. Before they built a fire on the
Isle of Jura and reputedly burnt 1m GBP on it, of course.
DC
--
Django Cat
> Django Cat wrote:
> > Before they built a fire on the
> > Isle of Jura and reputedly burnt 1m GBP on it, of course.
>
> They got hold of banknotes which were going to be disposed of anyway.
> I believe they paid a certain amount for the privilege of doing it
> themselves (and consequent extra security), but nothing like the face
> value.
My understanding is that Cauty and Drummond burnt their own funds,
which is certainly what they claimed, they didn't borrow banknotes that
were already up for disposal. I've heard a number of discussions as to
whether or not the event was faked, but I'm inclined to accept they did
it for real, despite the fact it seems to go against human nature to
believe this.
DC
--
Don Phillipson
news:bpir07-...@wschwanke.de...
> about the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>
> Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
> have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
> Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
> jargon in a particular group? If so which?
This is standard usage: cf. also "set fire," another standard
phrase. "Building a fire" seems to be more literally descriptive
than "setting fire" so far as successful initiation of a self-
sustaining fire requiries organization of the essentials (fuel,
oxygen and initial temperature) in three-dimensional space,
viz. building. (We also talk about building relationships etc.
which seems more metaphorical than building a fire.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Looking at the times recorded by my news reader, James's response
appeared three minutes before Wolfgang's question. As a result, posts
are out of order in the list presented to me. Such things are far from
being unique, as I recall, but it was odd to observe.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Steve Hayes
>Hi group,
>
>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>
>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
You build a fire before you light it.
That means arranging the wood in the right order, and so on. Once you have
built it, then you light it and it should burn properly, not to slowly, not to
quickly.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Don Phillipson
news:hhf6hs$9pi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
> > have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
> > Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
> > jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>
> It is commonplace; normally it refers to a fire of wood logs, whether
> outdoors or in a fireplace. I presume it derives from the fact that it
> is necessary to literally build the log structure if one is to obtain
> anything like a decent blaze. And the building is not necessarily
> complete when the fire is first lit, because often more fuel is added
> afterwards, and, at least to the skilled, that is not simply a matter of
> dumping some more wood on (or in) any old whichaway, but of continuing
> the "building" process of a proper structure.
Build a fire seems standard usage for correct initiation
of all sorts of fires, including household grates or stoves
(with coke or coal, more commonly than with wood fuel)
under boilers for steam engines, etc. All aim at a steady
output of a large but determinate amount of heat (enough
for the contemplated work but not dangerously too much)
but that starts from nothing (no fire, thus no heat) thus must
be "built."
Andy Walker
> Hi group,
> about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
Hm. Well into Lewis Carroll territory there! What was the
name of the title of the story called?
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Frank ess
Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a
> Fire".
>
> Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
> have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps
> an Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or
> perhaps jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>
> Thank you :)
Seems to me London could have chosen one of the other phrases you
mention, with the same /meaning/, but "building" calls up a more
substantial product, which as you could see from context would have
been more desirable. Failure to /build/ a fire implies a greater
discrepancy between wish and fact.
--
Frank ess
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Having quickly skimmed through the story at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/To_Build_a_Fire
I'd say that "build" is the appropriate word. It conveys the idea of an
accumulation, a "build-up", as well the actual lighting of the fire.
In the story a man in very cold conditions in timberland gathered wood,
lit some of it and then very carefully added more wood to build it into
a decent sized fire.
Then disaster struck.
Now the tree under which he had done this carried a weight of snow
on its boughs. No wind had blown for weeks, and each bough was fully
freighted. Each time he had pulled a twig he had communicated a
slight agitation to the tree--an imperceptible agitation, so far as
he was concerned, but an agitation sufficient to bring about the
disaster. High up in the tree one bough capsized its load of snow.
This fell on the boughs beneath, capsizing them. This process
continued, spreading out and involving the whole tree. It grew like
an avalanche, and it descended without warning upon the man and the
fire, and the fire was blotted out! Where it had burned was a mantle
of fresh and disordered snow.
This lack of heat from a fire led eventually to his death.
I suggest that the idea of "building a fire" is a metaphor for the
unstoppable accumulation and spread of adverse events.
The literal building of a fire led to a metaphorical firestorm of events
which led to his death.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Skitt
> You build a fire before you light it.
>
> That means arranging the wood in the right order, and so on. Once you
> have built it, then you light it and it should burn properly, not to
> slowly, not to quickly.
Conserving o's?
--
Skitt (AmE)
Patok
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi group,
>>>
>>> about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>>>
>>> Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic?
>>
>> could be because lighting fires is no longer an everyday experience.
>
> appeared three minutes before Wolfgang's question. As a result, posts
> are out of order in the list presented to me. Such things are far from
> being unique, as I recall, but it was odd to observe.
Such things /are/ unique, in the sense that when they happen, there
is a bug or mis-configuration in your news reader, server, or both. In
this particular instance, however, all is well - Wolfgang made not one
posting with the question, but two. The first one, to which James
replied at 04:20, was made at 04:08. The second one, which you
apparently saw, was made at 04:23. (All times are my local time, of course.)
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Redshade
Redshade
Whoops!
Sorry about above blank post. My first at this site.
I was going to add that a few weeks ago on the 5th of November people
all over the UK were building bonfires.
mm
>Hi group,
>
>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>
>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
First you have to build a fire. Then you can light it.
If you want a good fire, that is.
>Thank you :)
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:08:55 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi group,
>>
>>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>>
>>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>
>First you have to build a fire. Then you can light it.
>
>If you want a good fire, that is.
>
Or as in the case of the story being discussed you light a tiny fire and
then add more wood to build it into a big fire.
Then he got out matches and proceeded to make a fire. From the
undergrowth, where high water of the previous spring had lodged a
supply of seasoned twigs, he got his firewood. Working carefully
from a small beginning, he soon had a roaring fire,
mm
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:56:52 -0500, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:08:55 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi group,
>>>
>>>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>>>
>>>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>>>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>>>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>>>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>>
>>First you have to build a fire. Then you can light it.
Perhaps I should have pointed out that I'm talking about a wood fire,
but otoh, I figured the OP knew that.
>>If you want a good fire, that is.
>>
>Or as in the case of the story being discussed you light a tiny fire and
>then add more wood to build it into a big fire.
Very good point.
>
> Then he got out matches and proceeded to make a fire. From the
> undergrowth, where high water of the previous spring had lodged a
> supply of seasoned twigs, he got his firewood. Working carefully
> from a small beginning, he soon had a roaring fire,
--
mm
wrote:
Definitely. Around here we're saving o's and sending them to
Afghanistan, so it can become Afghanistoan. And later Afghoanistoan.
Don Phillipson
news:vm6nj51jqo0npeesu...@4ax.com...
> Having quickly skimmed through the story at:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/To_Build_a_Fire
>
> I'd say that "build" is the appropriate word. It conveys the idea of an
> accumulation, a "build-up", as well the actual lighting of the fire.
>
> In the story a man in very cold conditions in timberland gathered wood,
> lit some of it and then very carefully added more wood to build it into
> a decent sized fire.
>
> Then disaster struck.
>
> Now the tree under which he had done this carried a weight of snow
> on its boughs. No wind had blown for weeks, and each bough was fully
> freighted. Each time he had pulled a twig he had communicated a
> slight agitation to the tree--an imperceptible agitation, so far as
> he was concerned, but an agitation sufficient to bring about the
> disaster. High up in the tree one bough capsized its load of snow.
> This fell on the boughs beneath, capsizing them. This process
> continued, spreading out and involving the whole tree. It grew like
> an avalanche, and it descended without warning upon the man and the
> fire, and the fire was blotted out! Where it had burned was a mantle
> of fresh and disordered snow.
>
> This lack of heat from a fire led eventually to his death.
This interpretation is odd -- but then it is not a very good story,
and implausible in its facts. These concern a chap travelling
on foot alone in the Yukon winter (temp. minus 50) a distance
of at least 30 miles. (At 10 a.m. "he was making four miles an hour,"
would reach a landmark 10 miles distant at 12.30, and would
reach camp by 6 p.m. i.e. in the dark. Night falls at 2 or 3 p.m.
in this latitude.) It is in fact highly unlikely that even the fittest
man could average 4 m.p.h. on foot (as distinct from ski or
snowshoe) in a foot of new-fallen snow on a forest trail
already covered by deep snow. He gets his feet wet crossing
a frozen creek, thus builds a fire to dry his moccasins. The
snow falling off the tree extinguishes his first fire, but then his
fingers are too frozen to build another fire: so he eventually
dies of exhaustion and exposure.
Implausibilities include:
1. Traveling alone in the Yukon winter.
2. Supposed traveling speed afoot in a foot of snow.
3. Failing to carry a pack with emergency supplies, dry
footwear, an axe, showshoes in case of unforeseen
deep snow etc. (All he carries is a sandwich, a pipe,
matches and tinder, and both chewing and smoking
tobacco.)
4. When pausing to eat on the trail, the first thing
you do is build a fire to make tea or some other hot
drink. (Drinking river water will only make you feel
cold.) No drink is mentioned in this story.
Steve Hayes
Chuck Riggs
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:08:55 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi group,
>>
>>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>>
>>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>
>First you have to build a fire. Then you can light it.
>
>If you want a good fire, that is.
In my vernacular, you "make a fire", which includes lighting the wood,
or you "build a fire and then light it", illogical as it may sound to
"build a fire" when I actually mean stacking some wood over some
kindling.
mm
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:56:52 -0500, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:08:55 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi group,
>>>
>>>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>>>
>>>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>>>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>>>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>>>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>>
>>First you have to build a fire. Then you can light it.
>>
>>If you want a good fire, that is.
>
>In my vernacular, you "make a fire", which includes lighting the wood,
>or you "build a fire and then light it", illogical as it may sound to
>"build a fire" when I actually mean stacking some wood over some
>kindling.
Yes, my vernacular too. Maybe "fire" means "fire-to-be".
It's efficient use of words, instead of saying, "build a pile of wood
intended for a fire."
Eric Walker
[...]
> In my vernacular, you "make a fire", which includes lighting the wood,
> or you "build a fire and then light it", illogical as it may sound to
> "build a fire" when I actually mean stacking some wood over some
> kindling.
But is it not so that once the pile is ignited, there is often--depending
on location and purpose--a need to continue or enlarge the fire by
careful additions of correctly sized and--in particular--placed fuel?
Would that not also, then, be part of "building" (or, later, building up)
the fire?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Robert Bannister
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:38:44 +0000, Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> In my vernacular, you "make a fire", which includes lighting the wood,
>> or you "build a fire and then light it", illogical as it may sound to
>> "build a fire" when I actually mean stacking some wood over some
>> kindling.
>
> But is it not so that once the pile is ignited, there is often--depending
> on location and purpose--a need to continue or enlarge the fire by
> careful additions of correctly sized and--in particular--placed fuel?
> Would that not also, then, be part of "building" (or, later, building up)
> the fire?
>
>
I'd go for "building up". If the fire is properly built, then it is
relatively easy to add logs or branches. A poorly built one will collapse.
--
Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs
You would go for it, but would you actually say such a thing?
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:38:44 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:56:52 -0500, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:08:55 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi group,
>>>>
>>>>about the name of the title of Jack London's story "To Build a Fire".
>>>>
>>>>Question: Is "build a fire" idiomatic? It strikes me as odd, I would
>>>>have expected "to make a fire" or "to light a fire". Is it perhaps an
>>>>Americanism, outdated usage, a regional dialect or slang, or perhaps
>>>>jargon in a particular group? If so which?
>>>
>>>First you have to build a fire. Then you can light it.
>>>
>>>If you want a good fire, that is.
>>
>>In my vernacular, you "make a fire", which includes lighting the wood,
>>or you "build a fire and then light it", illogical as it may sound to
>>"build a fire" when I actually mean stacking some wood over some
>>kindling.
>
>Yes, my vernacular too. Maybe "fire" means "fire-to-be".
>
>It's efficient use of words, instead of saying, "build a pile of wood
>intended for a fire."
Yes, when I build a fire, much like when I build a dog house, while it
may exist in my mind's eye, its physical existence can only be in the
future.
Robert Bannister
Not sure. "Go and build the fire up a bit" sounds natural enough to me,
but I'd probably say "Go and chuck another couple of logs on the fire".
--
Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
I suppose that is fine, as long as you didn't rob the logs you
chucked.
Robert Bannister
I think we're moving into woodchuck territory.
--
Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Logs were bad enough, but I hope Robs don't rob territory from
woodchucks, too.