"Forward" and "back" in time

[Guy Barry]

I had a misunderstanding at work the other day because of these terms.
They're so confusing to me that I avoid using them myself, but unfortunately
other people do.

If a meeting is scheduled for 10am, and it's "brought forward" by an hour,
then as I understand it it's moved to 9am (one hour earlier). Conversely,
if it's scheduled for 10am and it's "put back" by an hour, then presumably
it's moved to 11am (one hour later).

However, I've often spoken to people who use the term "put back" to imply an
earlier time. And in many ways this makes sense, because if you go "back"
in time, you're going into the past, not the future.

Can anyone help?
--
Guy Barry

[Harrison Hill]

I would never doubt that your interepretation is the correct one. The
meeting is "brought forward" in the sense of being "brought towards"
you - nearer in proximity - as opposed to being "put back" - over
there somewhere in the distance - where it will take longer for you to
arrive at it.

[Leslie Danks]

How you look at this depends on whether believe that you are moving
forward through time, or that you are temporally "fixed" and time is
coming towards you. I did read that this was one possible difference
between different cultures, but have not retained enough of the various
arguments and consequences to describe them cogently.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Mike Barnes]

Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>:

I don't know whether this is any help but your understanding matches
mine. I've never heard the opposite view and it would make sense to me
only if the meeting had a continuous existence, and that continuity was
somehow broken by movement into the past or future.

There's also the notion of a meeting that goes back in time when the
discussion at ten o'clock is indistinguishable from the discussion at
nine o'clock.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I don't remember where I read it (probably Steven Pinker's The Language
Instinct), but I have the same recollection. I think he said that the
Hopi see time in the opposite way from us. I think they see the future
as something behind them, because they can't see it, but the past as
something in front of them, because they can.

Anyway, to answer the original question, I think different people, even
in our own culture, use the terems in opposite ways. So if no specific
time is mentioned and you need to know you need to ask.




--
athel

[LFS]

Interesting, that. I like to sit on buses and trains with my back to the
front so that I can see where I've been. Perhaps I am part Hopi, I do
hope so.

>
> Anyway, to answer the original question, I think different people, even
> in our own culture, use the terems in opposite ways. So if no specific
> time is mentioned and you need to know you need to ask.

That would be my advice, too. (Obaue: I think there's a comma missing
after that final "you".)



--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I had one, but I took it out, as I decided it was a defining clause. On
the other hand I have no defence of "terems".


--
athel

[Nick Spalding]

LFS wrote, in <9pfmtu...@mid.individual.net>
on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:41:36 +0000:

In my young days the grown-ups always preferred "back to the engine".

>> Anyway, to answer the original question, I think different people, even
>> in our own culture, use the terems in opposite ways. So if no specific
>> time is mentioned and you need to know you need to ask.
>
>That would be my advice, too. (Obaue: I think there's a comma missing
>after that final "you".)
--

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Mike Barnes]

Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>:

>LFS wrote, in <9pfmtu...@mid.individual.net>
> on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:41:36 +0000:

>>I like to sit on buses and trains with my back to the
>>front so that I can see where I've been. Perhaps I am part Hopi, I do
>>hope so.
>
>In my young days the grown-ups always preferred "back to the engine".

That's the safer way in the event of emergency braking or a collision.

For similar reasons I think plane seats ought to be back-to-front. They
often are for the crew.

[R H Draney]

LFS filted:

"After"?...I see what you did there....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[LFS]

Oh, good.

[Peter Moylan]

The mnemonic is "Spring forward, go back". But that won't help unless
you among the very few who know which way to change the clock.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Mike Lyle]

One of the Bs tried it in the 'fifties, but apparently the passengers
didn't like it - perhaps because it made them aware of why it was a
good idea. It needs an IATA regulation or something to make it
universal. RAF transports used to have that arrangement, too.

--
Mike.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:19:32 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:

>In my young days the grown-ups always preferred "back to the engine".

Perhaps because in the days of steam engines you were less likely to get soot
in your eye.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Stan Brown]

I think that latter group is the minority; I understand "put
forward" and "put back" as you do.

But temporal terms are slippery, because not everyone uses them in
the same way. And science-fiction fans who travel forward (backward)
in time move into the future (past), which is just the opposite sense
of moving a meeting. So I think you are better off to say "start the
meeting an hour earlier (later)" -- I think everyone understands
"earlier" and "later".

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:10:44 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> The mnemonic is "Spring forward, go back". But that won't help unless
> you among the very few who know which way to change the clock.

I've heard that always as "spring forward, fall back". But it's a
mnemonic _for_ which way to move the clock. Does anyone think that
putting the clock forward means changing it to an *earlier* time? I
don't believe so.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 2/8/2012 9:09 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
> However, I've often spoken to people who use the term "put back" to imply an
> earlier time. And in many ways this makes sense, because if you go "back"
> in time, you're going into the past, not the future.

This confusion isn't limited to talking about time. In just about any
context, moving something forward can mean either moving it towards
someone or moving it ahead in the direction someone is facing. Just
choose (or listen for) a verb that makes the meaning unambiguous. You
can "pull" the meeting either forward or back to move it closer to the
current time, for instance, or "push" it forward, back, ahead, or out to
a time further in the future. If you don't hear this kind of clue, you
know you'd better ask for one.

ŹR

[John Varela]

I once rode in a rear-facing seat on an Air France Caravelle. I
didn't like it.

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:19:32 UTC, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:

> In my young days the grown-ups always preferred "back to the engine".

Like in one of those fancy Ferraris or Lamborghinis, or at least a
Porsche.

--
John Varela

[the Omrud]

Captain Scarlet and his chums drove their Spectrum vehicle facing backwards.

--
David