Usage and meaning of “up” in “…worth at least a thousand pounds up in London”
Two chairs like that must be worth at least a thousand pounds up in London.
I don't know what the 'up' mean in the sentence. I'm even not sure which words — perhaps either 'a thousand pounds' or 'in London' — are modified by it.
meaning
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
add a comment |
Two chairs like that must be worth at least a thousand pounds up in London.
I don't know what the 'up' mean in the sentence. I'm even not sure which words — perhaps either 'a thousand pounds' or 'in London' — are modified by it.
meaning
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
1
It is ambiguous. On first reading I thought it was saying "a thousand pounds up" -- that is to say "over a thousand pounds". But that interpretation clashes with the use of "at least" to modify the price. It's poorly worded.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 18:18
I agree with @HotLicks: either "at least" or "up" is superfluous: "... worth at least a thousand pounds" or "worth a thousand pounds up(wards)".
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 18:47
1
@TrevorD - But my point was that, on second reading, you see that it's "up in London". The old "garden path".
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:25
@HotLicks Sorry, I didn't even see that meaning - but I now agree it's ambiguous.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 19:36
@TrevorD - Getting it right is probably actually harder for someone coming in and reading an extracted sentence than reading the stuff in a book, since your eyes aren't flowing with the text, and so they tend to "jump ahead" to the phrase without first absorbing the lead-in verbiage.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:40
add a comment |
Two chairs like that must be worth at least a thousand pounds up in London.
I don't know what the 'up' mean in the sentence. I'm even not sure which words — perhaps either 'a thousand pounds' or 'in London' — are modified by it.
meaning
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
Two chairs like that must be worth at least a thousand pounds up in London.
I don't know what the 'up' mean in the sentence. I'm even not sure which words — perhaps either 'a thousand pounds' or 'in London' — are modified by it.
meaning
meaning
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
edited Mar 17 at 21:14
Barmar
9,8931529
9,8931529
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
asked Mar 17 at 14:58
tasiratasira
424
424
1
It is ambiguous. On first reading I thought it was saying "a thousand pounds up" -- that is to say "over a thousand pounds". But that interpretation clashes with the use of "at least" to modify the price. It's poorly worded.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 18:18
I agree with @HotLicks: either "at least" or "up" is superfluous: "... worth at least a thousand pounds" or "worth a thousand pounds up(wards)".
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 18:47
1
@TrevorD - But my point was that, on second reading, you see that it's "up in London". The old "garden path".
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:25
@HotLicks Sorry, I didn't even see that meaning - but I now agree it's ambiguous.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 19:36
@TrevorD - Getting it right is probably actually harder for someone coming in and reading an extracted sentence than reading the stuff in a book, since your eyes aren't flowing with the text, and so they tend to "jump ahead" to the phrase without first absorbing the lead-in verbiage.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:40
add a comment |
1
It is ambiguous. On first reading I thought it was saying "a thousand pounds up" -- that is to say "over a thousand pounds". But that interpretation clashes with the use of "at least" to modify the price. It's poorly worded.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 18:18
I agree with @HotLicks: either "at least" or "up" is superfluous: "... worth at least a thousand pounds" or "worth a thousand pounds up(wards)".
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 18:47
1
@TrevorD - But my point was that, on second reading, you see that it's "up in London". The old "garden path".
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:25
@HotLicks Sorry, I didn't even see that meaning - but I now agree it's ambiguous.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 19:36
@TrevorD - Getting it right is probably actually harder for someone coming in and reading an extracted sentence than reading the stuff in a book, since your eyes aren't flowing with the text, and so they tend to "jump ahead" to the phrase without first absorbing the lead-in verbiage.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:40
1
1
It is ambiguous. On first reading I thought it was saying "a thousand pounds up" -- that is to say "over a thousand pounds". But that interpretation clashes with the use of "at least" to modify the price. It's poorly worded.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 18:18
It is ambiguous. On first reading I thought it was saying "a thousand pounds up" -- that is to say "over a thousand pounds". But that interpretation clashes with the use of "at least" to modify the price. It's poorly worded.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 18:18
I agree with @HotLicks: either "at least" or "up" is superfluous: "... worth at least a thousand pounds" or "worth a thousand pounds up(wards)".
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 18:47
I agree with @HotLicks: either "at least" or "up" is superfluous: "... worth at least a thousand pounds" or "worth a thousand pounds up(wards)".
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 18:47
1
1
@TrevorD - But my point was that, on second reading, you see that it's "up in London". The old "garden path".
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:25
@TrevorD - But my point was that, on second reading, you see that it's "up in London". The old "garden path".
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:25
@HotLicks Sorry, I didn't even see that meaning - but I now agree it's ambiguous.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 19:36
@HotLicks Sorry, I didn't even see that meaning - but I now agree it's ambiguous.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 19:36
@TrevorD - Getting it right is probably actually harder for someone coming in and reading an extracted sentence than reading the stuff in a book, since your eyes aren't flowing with the text, and so they tend to "jump ahead" to the phrase without first absorbing the lead-in verbiage.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:40
@TrevorD - Getting it right is probably actually harder for someone coming in and reading an extracted sentence than reading the stuff in a book, since your eyes aren't flowing with the text, and so they tend to "jump ahead" to the phrase without first absorbing the lead-in verbiage.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:40
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
"Up" and "down" have meanings that refer to towns, cities, and other possible destinations.
Compare this meaning and example sentence for "up" in the Oxford Learners' Dictionary:
(adverb) 1. towards or in a higher position
They live up in the mountains.
The mountains are in a higher position. It'd be possible to just say "they live in the mountains," but the "up" gives an idea of relative position - they live up in the mountains compared to where the speaker is talking. (The valley? The plains? Anywhere else lower?)
What gets tricky is what precisely "higher position" is referring to. Is it elevation? Latitude? Political or economic prestige? For the last value (prestige) there is a specific meaning for "up":
(adverb) 4. to or at an important place, especially a large city
We're going up to New York for the day.
New York is down in elevation and latitude from Rochester, but someone from Rochester may well go "up to New York."
This adverb up commonly comes before prepositions like "up to," "up in," and "up at." "Down" has a contrasting meaning, and different locales or individuals may have their own idea of whether a city qualifies as "up" or "down" relative to them. (One can use both "down in London" and "up in London.")
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
1
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
|
show 3 more comments
I (born 1964) was brought up south of London so I have personal experience of this problem. We always went up to London. As there was no obvious altitude difference, I always assumed it meant "up north" but my dad (born 1916) assured me that London was always up. He was brought up north-west of London. He further told me that it was a rigid convention on the railways (and we would always have travelled by train) that the up train went to London and the down train came back.
The Free Dictionary supports this claim that there are two different definitions in use, and this document from the the Indian Railway Fan Club (see section on "Up and Down Trains") says
Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ, whichever is closer. [...]
History
In the UK, the convention was that all trains going to London were "up", and all those going away from it were "down".
I am pretty certain (from experience) that my dad was right, but equally certain that it is not common practice these days. It may well depend on direction - you might be more likely to go up to London if it were east than if it were south. I would definitely go down to London these days from where I am now in Scotland.
In short, I am sure up is definitely the direction of London, but we cannot be sure, without further context (i.e. date and location) if it meant "up north(ish)" or "towards the metropolis".
In this example, the implication is clearly that prices will be higher in London than where they are now.
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490097%2fusage-and-meaning-of-up-in-worth-at-least-a-thousand-pounds-up-in-london%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"Up" and "down" have meanings that refer to towns, cities, and other possible destinations.
Compare this meaning and example sentence for "up" in the Oxford Learners' Dictionary:
(adverb) 1. towards or in a higher position
They live up in the mountains.
The mountains are in a higher position. It'd be possible to just say "they live in the mountains," but the "up" gives an idea of relative position - they live up in the mountains compared to where the speaker is talking. (The valley? The plains? Anywhere else lower?)
What gets tricky is what precisely "higher position" is referring to. Is it elevation? Latitude? Political or economic prestige? For the last value (prestige) there is a specific meaning for "up":
(adverb) 4. to or at an important place, especially a large city
We're going up to New York for the day.
New York is down in elevation and latitude from Rochester, but someone from Rochester may well go "up to New York."
This adverb up commonly comes before prepositions like "up to," "up in," and "up at." "Down" has a contrasting meaning, and different locales or individuals may have their own idea of whether a city qualifies as "up" or "down" relative to them. (One can use both "down in London" and "up in London.")
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
1
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
|
show 3 more comments
"Up" and "down" have meanings that refer to towns, cities, and other possible destinations.
Compare this meaning and example sentence for "up" in the Oxford Learners' Dictionary:
(adverb) 1. towards or in a higher position
They live up in the mountains.
The mountains are in a higher position. It'd be possible to just say "they live in the mountains," but the "up" gives an idea of relative position - they live up in the mountains compared to where the speaker is talking. (The valley? The plains? Anywhere else lower?)
What gets tricky is what precisely "higher position" is referring to. Is it elevation? Latitude? Political or economic prestige? For the last value (prestige) there is a specific meaning for "up":
(adverb) 4. to or at an important place, especially a large city
We're going up to New York for the day.
New York is down in elevation and latitude from Rochester, but someone from Rochester may well go "up to New York."
This adverb up commonly comes before prepositions like "up to," "up in," and "up at." "Down" has a contrasting meaning, and different locales or individuals may have their own idea of whether a city qualifies as "up" or "down" relative to them. (One can use both "down in London" and "up in London.")
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
1
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
|
show 3 more comments
"Up" and "down" have meanings that refer to towns, cities, and other possible destinations.
Compare this meaning and example sentence for "up" in the Oxford Learners' Dictionary:
(adverb) 1. towards or in a higher position
They live up in the mountains.
The mountains are in a higher position. It'd be possible to just say "they live in the mountains," but the "up" gives an idea of relative position - they live up in the mountains compared to where the speaker is talking. (The valley? The plains? Anywhere else lower?)
What gets tricky is what precisely "higher position" is referring to. Is it elevation? Latitude? Political or economic prestige? For the last value (prestige) there is a specific meaning for "up":
(adverb) 4. to or at an important place, especially a large city
We're going up to New York for the day.
New York is down in elevation and latitude from Rochester, but someone from Rochester may well go "up to New York."
This adverb up commonly comes before prepositions like "up to," "up in," and "up at." "Down" has a contrasting meaning, and different locales or individuals may have their own idea of whether a city qualifies as "up" or "down" relative to them. (One can use both "down in London" and "up in London.")
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
"Up" and "down" have meanings that refer to towns, cities, and other possible destinations.
Compare this meaning and example sentence for "up" in the Oxford Learners' Dictionary:
(adverb) 1. towards or in a higher position
They live up in the mountains.
The mountains are in a higher position. It'd be possible to just say "they live in the mountains," but the "up" gives an idea of relative position - they live up in the mountains compared to where the speaker is talking. (The valley? The plains? Anywhere else lower?)
What gets tricky is what precisely "higher position" is referring to. Is it elevation? Latitude? Political or economic prestige? For the last value (prestige) there is a specific meaning for "up":
(adverb) 4. to or at an important place, especially a large city
We're going up to New York for the day.
New York is down in elevation and latitude from Rochester, but someone from Rochester may well go "up to New York."
This adverb up commonly comes before prepositions like "up to," "up in," and "up at." "Down" has a contrasting meaning, and different locales or individuals may have their own idea of whether a city qualifies as "up" or "down" relative to them. (One can use both "down in London" and "up in London.")
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
answered Mar 17 at 15:30
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,9361127
5,9361127
1
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
|
show 3 more comments
1
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
1
1
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
Can "up" also mean northwards?
– stannius
Mar 17 at 17:30
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Couldn't say anything about formal use, but it certainly can in casual use. I've (in the US) seen "up in Canada" used pretty frequently.
– Hearth
Mar 17 at 17:35
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@stannius Yes, and in the UK, which is where London is, that's exactly what it will mean.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 21:37
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I might be missing something in your comment, but you're aware that London is in the south east of England (and hence of the UK)?
– Steve Melnikoff
Mar 17 at 22:55
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
@SteveMelnikoff Thank you, yes, I know where London is. There are plenty of places that are further south in the country than London; I was in one just a few days ago. But indeed the rest of us say we go down to London! The point being that, in context, the term relates to north/southness, not altitude or prestige.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 22:59
|
show 3 more comments
I (born 1964) was brought up south of London so I have personal experience of this problem. We always went up to London. As there was no obvious altitude difference, I always assumed it meant "up north" but my dad (born 1916) assured me that London was always up. He was brought up north-west of London. He further told me that it was a rigid convention on the railways (and we would always have travelled by train) that the up train went to London and the down train came back.
The Free Dictionary supports this claim that there are two different definitions in use, and this document from the the Indian Railway Fan Club (see section on "Up and Down Trains") says
Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ, whichever is closer. [...]
History
In the UK, the convention was that all trains going to London were "up", and all those going away from it were "down".
I am pretty certain (from experience) that my dad was right, but equally certain that it is not common practice these days. It may well depend on direction - you might be more likely to go up to London if it were east than if it were south. I would definitely go down to London these days from where I am now in Scotland.
In short, I am sure up is definitely the direction of London, but we cannot be sure, without further context (i.e. date and location) if it meant "up north(ish)" or "towards the metropolis".
In this example, the implication is clearly that prices will be higher in London than where they are now.
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
I (born 1964) was brought up south of London so I have personal experience of this problem. We always went up to London. As there was no obvious altitude difference, I always assumed it meant "up north" but my dad (born 1916) assured me that London was always up. He was brought up north-west of London. He further told me that it was a rigid convention on the railways (and we would always have travelled by train) that the up train went to London and the down train came back.
The Free Dictionary supports this claim that there are two different definitions in use, and this document from the the Indian Railway Fan Club (see section on "Up and Down Trains") says
Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ, whichever is closer. [...]
History
In the UK, the convention was that all trains going to London were "up", and all those going away from it were "down".
I am pretty certain (from experience) that my dad was right, but equally certain that it is not common practice these days. It may well depend on direction - you might be more likely to go up to London if it were east than if it were south. I would definitely go down to London these days from where I am now in Scotland.
In short, I am sure up is definitely the direction of London, but we cannot be sure, without further context (i.e. date and location) if it meant "up north(ish)" or "towards the metropolis".
In this example, the implication is clearly that prices will be higher in London than where they are now.
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
I (born 1964) was brought up south of London so I have personal experience of this problem. We always went up to London. As there was no obvious altitude difference, I always assumed it meant "up north" but my dad (born 1916) assured me that London was always up. He was brought up north-west of London. He further told me that it was a rigid convention on the railways (and we would always have travelled by train) that the up train went to London and the down train came back.
The Free Dictionary supports this claim that there are two different definitions in use, and this document from the the Indian Railway Fan Club (see section on "Up and Down Trains") says
Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ, whichever is closer. [...]
History
In the UK, the convention was that all trains going to London were "up", and all those going away from it were "down".
I am pretty certain (from experience) that my dad was right, but equally certain that it is not common practice these days. It may well depend on direction - you might be more likely to go up to London if it were east than if it were south. I would definitely go down to London these days from where I am now in Scotland.
In short, I am sure up is definitely the direction of London, but we cannot be sure, without further context (i.e. date and location) if it meant "up north(ish)" or "towards the metropolis".
In this example, the implication is clearly that prices will be higher in London than where they are now.
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
I (born 1964) was brought up south of London so I have personal experience of this problem. We always went up to London. As there was no obvious altitude difference, I always assumed it meant "up north" but my dad (born 1916) assured me that London was always up. He was brought up north-west of London. He further told me that it was a rigid convention on the railways (and we would always have travelled by train) that the up train went to London and the down train came back.
The Free Dictionary supports this claim that there are two different definitions in use, and this document from the the Indian Railway Fan Club (see section on "Up and Down Trains") says
Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ, whichever is closer. [...]
History
In the UK, the convention was that all trains going to London were "up", and all those going away from it were "down".
I am pretty certain (from experience) that my dad was right, but equally certain that it is not common practice these days. It may well depend on direction - you might be more likely to go up to London if it were east than if it were south. I would definitely go down to London these days from where I am now in Scotland.
In short, I am sure up is definitely the direction of London, but we cannot be sure, without further context (i.e. date and location) if it meant "up north(ish)" or "towards the metropolis".
In this example, the implication is clearly that prices will be higher in London than where they are now.
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
answered Mar 17 at 22:55
David RobinsonDavid Robinson
2,537216
2,537216
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
I concur: without disputing your anecdote, in my experience (born 1987) that is not the "current" usage of the phrase (for some value of "current"). The average individual living in, say, York, will never claim to go "up" to London.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 17 at 23:08
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
Yes, @LightnessRacesinOrbit, things like this do change. I have learnt Scots Gaelic and I was taught that you always go up south and down north but I have never actually heard this usage. Everyone I know just uses the English directions!
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:20
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
I too was brought up with the understanding that all trains (from whatever part of Britain) went up to London, presumably (and this is my interpretation) because London is the capital city.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:22
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@TrevorD I think the change in terminology reflects a cultural shift. When the railways were young, everyone in the Empire (whether in Edinburgh, Dublin or Bombay) was expected to bow down in the direction of London and Her Majesty Queen Victoria. We don't do that anymore.
– David Robinson
Mar 17 at 23:31
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
@DavidRobinson I was talking about the 1950s - 1970s - not Victorian times! On reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the "up-line" always referred to the line towards London & the "down-line" to the opposite; I don't know about lines that were going neither towards nor away from London.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490097%2fusage-and-meaning-of-up-in-worth-at-least-a-thousand-pounds-up-in-london%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
It is ambiguous. On first reading I thought it was saying "a thousand pounds up" -- that is to say "over a thousand pounds". But that interpretation clashes with the use of "at least" to modify the price. It's poorly worded.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 18:18
I agree with @HotLicks: either "at least" or "up" is superfluous: "... worth at least a thousand pounds" or "worth a thousand pounds up(wards)".
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 18:47
1
@TrevorD - But my point was that, on second reading, you see that it's "up in London". The old "garden path".
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:25
@HotLicks Sorry, I didn't even see that meaning - but I now agree it's ambiguous.
– TrevorD
Mar 17 at 19:36
@TrevorD - Getting it right is probably actually harder for someone coming in and reading an extracted sentence than reading the stuff in a book, since your eyes aren't flowing with the text, and so they tend to "jump ahead" to the phrase without first absorbing the lead-in verbiage.
– Hot Licks
Mar 17 at 19:40