Re: train direction

In article <450aafac$0$15863$4fafbaef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, look-at-
sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

Stephen Calder ha scritto:

That's a pretty old rule that doesn't hold up any longer, if it ever
did. It's quite natural to talk of the pen's cap, the letter's ending,
the cheque's signature, the ocean's roar.

Thank you very much, it's clear now.

I'm not sure it's natural to say that the train has a direction, though.
It goes in a direction rather than having one.

I think here you are too fussy; it seems obvious to me that "train's
direction" stands for "the direction of the train's velocity".

It might seem obvious to you, but it's not normal in UK English to talk
about "the train's direction". It sounds as though somebody is giving
the train instructions. Don't make the mistake of trying to apply logic
to English usage. Native speakers know what sounds natural and what
doesn't, even if it is perfectly gramatical.

If it were a ship, rather than a train, you could talk about "the ship's
heading".

Note that I wrote "velocity", not "speed" beacause speed is a scalar and
hasn't got a direction while velocity has.

We know that. This place is stuffed full of doctorates, engineering
degrees and other scientific qualifications. You have stated a
mathematical/scientific position which is entirely irrelevant in
everyday English usage. However, the vast majority of people would not
have any idea what you were talking about, and would consider velocity
and speed to be synonyms.

--
David
=====
Shinagawa, Japan

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.