This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Does anyone say “The Eiffel Tower is 324m high.”?
That’s how they teach it here despite a native speaker (me) telling them it’s bogus.
Its common for me to hear it used in that way, so I don’t think its that wrong, just a technicality, and I think most people wouldn’t blink an eye at it. Except maybe you? ^^
Makes sense to me, too :P
I think “high” is just the (slightly) older way to describe tall things, and “tall” came into being popular more recently (last 30-40 years, I’d guess?). Then again, I’m just making stuff up, haha.
To me, “high” sounds like “above the ground”. If I were standing on top of the Eiffel Tower, I’d be 324m high not 324m tall (unfortunately). Planes fly high in the sky not tall in the sky. It’s the difference between a position and an extent, like “far” and “long”. to omoimasu.
Tall is relative. High is quantitative.
I disagree with your statement that tall is relative. If that were the case, the question “How tall are you?” would not invite an answer like, say, “Six feet six,” but one like “Fairly.” I think both words are relative and quantitative but that they simply measure (or compare) different characteristics.
If you look at the opposites of the words, I think you can see where the discrepancy is (at least as I see it). You might think that the opposite of “tall” is “short”, but you’d be wrong. Another way to say “short” is “not very tall” which means that even short things are tall, maybe less tall than average, but still tall. I would say there is no opposite to tall. “High” on the other hand, does have an opposite but it’s not “low”, like you might expect, for the same reason “short” is not the opposite of “tall”; the opposite of “high” is “deep”.
Yes, there is over lap. But the first definition of tall is having a relatively great height; of more than average stature.
As a math and IT person, I prefer rules. But, language is not that easy. :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.