4 ms·

Yet another example of temporal ambiguity is the notion of “bringing forward” or “pushing back” a deadline. The sense employed is the opposite of the ordinary u

Yet another example of temporal ambiguity is the notion of “bringing forward” or “pushing back” a deadline. The sense employed is the opposite of the ordinary use i.e., moving “back” into the past or “forward” into the future.

function_seven 5y ago
I've always struggled with text being "in front of" other text. To me, the last word of a sentence is "in front of" the preceding word (which, of course is "behind it"). But also the first word of the sentence, coming first, "went in front" of the remaining words. I know the right answer, but I still have to stop a split-second to remember it.
NKosmatos 5y ago
Came here to write the exact same thing!!! We have a very heated/funny discussion in the office (pre COVID) every time I use one of these two. It all has to do with the point of reference, the vector of the arrow of time and the temporal conditions of the situation, but that’s something for another comment :-)
_tom_ 5y ago
Check out the Aymara language, where the past is in front of you and the future is behind you! As a non expert, I think the general idea is you can see the past, therefor it is in front of you, and the future is unknown, so it’s where you can’t see it, behind you.
pcl 5y ago
Indian English has a great word to help disambiguate these sorts of situations: “prepone”: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/prepone https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/prepone Also, no analysis of the semantic chaos of scheduling-related terms in English can be complete without a reference to “tabling”: the act of setting something aside for later discussion (to an American), or the act of discussing something immediately (to the rest of the English-speaking world). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedu...
FeepingCreature 5y ago
That makes perfect sense. When you're moving back into the past, you're talking from your perspective about your perspective. But when you're talking about a deadline, you're talking from your perspective about a "stationary" event in the future. Since you are moving forward, but the deadline stays in place, relatively speaking the deadline moves towards you - so you push it back, in its reference frame, into your future. If this sounds complicated, blame the fact that we use spatial intuitions for timekeeping. For instance, if you compare "step back" to "push back" in a spatial sense, they also mean opposite things, and for the same exact reason.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
Makes me think of various causality ambiguities in Polish, where a sentence can be written as [subject] [verb] [object], and [object] [verb] [subject], and all three words retain the same form - so you can't tell what's a subject and what's an object from the sentence in isolation. I do my best to avoid speaking/writing such sentences, but I had a brief moment of frustration when I started to type arrows showing which noun is acting on each. So, [subject] --[verb]-> [object], and [object] <--[verb]-- [subject]. Only much later it occurred to me that the direction of the arrow is also something potentially ambiguous - even in computing, the arrows on the diagrams can mean the opposite of what you'd naturally draw (looking at you, UML class diagram), so they get mixed up. My current pet peeve are the verbs that not only do not disambiguate between subject and object, but also they mean the opposite thing depending on context. "To rent" is an example in both English and Polish ("wynajmować"). If I say, "I'm renting a flat" (pl_PL: "wynajmuję mieszkanie"), it can mean that I'm either letting someone else live in my flat, or living in someone else's flat, and you can't tell which without context. Ugh.

function_seven 5y ago

I've always struggled with text being "in front of" other text. To me, the last word of a sentence is "in front of" the preceding word (which, of course is "behind it"). But also the first word of the sentence, coming first, "went in front" of the remaining words. I know the right answer, but I still have to stop a split-second to remember it.

NKosmatos 5y ago

Came here to write the exact same thing!!! We have a very heated/funny discussion in the office (pre COVID) every time I use one of these two. It all has to do with the point of reference, the vector of the arrow of time and the temporal conditions of the situation, but that’s something for another comment :-)

_tom_ 5y ago

Check out the Aymara language, where the past is in front of you and the future is behind you! As a non expert, I think the general idea is you can see the past, therefor it is in front of you, and the future is unknown, so it’s where you can’t see it, behind you.

pcl 5y ago

Indian English has a great word to help disambiguate these sorts of situations: “prepone”: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/prepone https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/prepone Also, no analysis of the semantic chaos of scheduling-related terms in English can be complete without a reference to “tabling”: the act of setting something aside for later discussion (to an American), or the act of discussing something immediately (to the rest of the English-speaking world). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedu...

FeepingCreature 5y ago

That makes perfect sense. When you're moving back into the past, you're talking from your perspective about your perspective. But when you're talking about a deadline, you're talking from your perspective about a "stationary" event in the future. Since you are moving forward, but the deadline stays in place, relatively speaking the deadline moves towards you - so you push it back, in its reference frame, into your future. If this sounds complicated, blame the fact that we use spatial intuitions for timekeeping. For instance, if you compare "step back" to "push back" in a spatial sense, they also mean opposite things, and for the same exact reason.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Makes me think of various causality ambiguities in Polish, where a sentence can be written as [subject] [verb] [object], and [object] [verb] [subject], and all three words retain the same form - so you can't tell what's a subject and what's an object from the sentence in isolation. I do my best to avoid speaking/writing such sentences, but I had a brief moment of frustration when I started to type arrows showing which noun is acting on each. So, [subject] --[verb]-> [object], and [object] <--[verb]-- [subject]. Only much later it occurred to me that the direction of the arrow is also something potentially ambiguous - even in computing, the arrows on the diagrams can mean the opposite of what you'd naturally draw (looking at you, UML class diagram), so they get mixed up. My current pet peeve are the verbs that not only do not disambiguate between subject and object, but also they mean the opposite thing depending on context. "To rent" is an example in both English and Polish ("wynajmować"). If I say, "I'm renting a flat" (pl_PL: "wynajmuję mieszkanie"), it can mean that I'm either letting someone else live in my flat, or living in someone else's flat, and you can't tell which without context. Ugh.