# light years ago



## CKM367

Sarah Rayner, in her 'One Morning, One Moment', used such a phrase:

*It all seems such light years ago . . .*

Light year is a measure of length, it is just year is a measure of time. Is such a phrase normal in English?


----------



## MuttQuad

CKM367 said:


> Sarah Rayner, in her 'One Morning, One Moment', used such a phrase:
> 
> *It all seems such light years ago . . .*
> 
> Light year is a measure of length, it is just year is a measure of time. Is such a phrase normal in English?



It's a measure of length, not time. Ignorant usage such as you cite, however, is not all that uncommon.


----------



## Greyfriar

Yes, it is quite normal.  'I loved her once, but that was light years ago.'


----------



## se16teddy

Not all novels are proof-read by physicists. Sad but true. 

As a matter of English grammar, the qualifier normally precedes the qualified, so a light year must be a sort of year!


----------



## PaulQ

I agree with CKM367: "a light year is a measure of length, it is just year is a measure of time." *It all seems such light years ago . . .* would be used in English by those of limited comprehension. Avoid it.


----------



## CKM367

I just wonder if the author wanted to deliver the ignorance of the speaker.


----------



## CKM367

Greyfriar said:


> Yes, it is quite normal.  'I loved her once, but that was light years ago.'


In this case, how many years are there in one light year? One?


----------



## PaulQ

Her website* states





> She spent her childhood in Richmond, Surrey, then became a punk, spiked her hair and went to Leeds University to study English


Her scientific knowledge can be assumed to be scant. I don't think that she wrote it maliciously, more negligently and out of ignorance.

* http://www.thecreativepumpkin.co.uk/about/potted-history


----------



## velisarius

It's a novel, the words are spoken by one of the characters. There's nothing to indicate that the writer has scant scientific knowledge. I'd say CKM has it right in post #6.


----------



## bennymix

And I assume you never say, "That city is several hours from here"?  



PaulQ said:


> I agree with CKM367: "a light year is a measure of length, it is just year is a measure of time." *It all seems such light years ago . . .* would be used in English by those of limited comprehension. Avoid it.


----------



## MuttQuad

bennymix said:


> And I assume you never say, "That city is several hours from here"?



A whole nother thing. Light year is specifically and only a measure of distance. The hours in going from one place to another by some kind of conveyance such as a plane, car, or train are clearly understood to be measures of time, i.e. the time it takes to get from point A  to point B.


----------



## PaulQ

I have appointed Muttquad my lawyer: he speaks for me.


----------



## bennymix

We say, "in a far away time," why not 'light year's away in time'?

As to distance, sure,  M-W unabr:


> _2a _ _(1)_ *:*  a portion of time between two events or between an event and the present *:* interval
> _<the distance between birth and death>__
> <not sure he could endure the distance to the time of his release from captivity> _



I see no reason for 'specifically and only', but since 'distance' itself applies to time, maybe that arguement is not needed.    Regarding the common term 'mile,' however, note, again, non-physical distance:



> 3*:*  a relatively great distance or interval [...] <thoughts _miles_ away> <his guilt stuck out a _mile_>



Would you agree thoughts can be "light years away"?

Would you accept  _<not sure he could endure what seemed light years to the time of his release from captivity>_  ?





MuttQuad said:


> A whole nother thing. Light year is specifically and only a measure of distance. [my blue: bennymix]The hours in going from one place to another by some kind of conveyance such as a plane, car, or train are clearly understood to be measures of time, i.e. the time it takes to get from point A  to point B.


----------



## sdgraham

MuttQuad said:


> It's a measure of length, not time. Ignorant usage such as you cite, however, is not all that uncommon.





Greyfriar said:


> Yes, it is quite normal.  'I loved her once, but that was light years ago.'





se16teddy said:


> Not all novels are proof-read by physicists. Sad but true.





PaulQ said:


> I agree with CKM367: "a light year is a measure of length, it is just year is a measure of time." *It all seems such light years ago . . .* would be used in English by those of limited comprehension. Avoid it.




(I suspect that those who misuse "light-year" as a unit of time would also say that someone is 100 meters late for dinner. )

When all else fails, see the dictionary:

Collins Concise English Dictionary © HarperCollins Publishers::

*light year*n

_*a unit of distance*_ used in astronomy, equal to the distance travelled by light in one year, i.e. 9.4607 × 1012 kilometres or 0.3066 parsecs


----------



## bennymix

This sort of argument is undermined by looking at how Collins deals with 'mile':
*
mile*


> WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English © 2015
> mile _/maɪl/_ n. [countable]
> 
> 
> 
> Weights and Measuresa unit of distance on land in English-speaking countries equal to 5280 feet, or 1760 yards (1.609 kilometers). _Abbr.: _mi,mi w="6",mi.mi w="7" d="1"
> [other entries are limited to physical distance]



This is obviously inadequate, as entries for 'mile' in other dictionaries will attest.   See my post #13, for example.

Does someone have OED access?



sdgraham said:


> (I suspect that those who misuse "light-year" as a unit of time would also say that someone is 100 meters late for dinner. )
> 
> When all else fails, see the dictionary:
> 
> Collins Concise English Dictionary © HarperCollins Publishers::
> 
> *light year*n
> 
> _*a unit of distance*_ used in astronomy, equal to the distance travelled by light in one year, i.e. 9.4607 × 1012 kilometres or 0.3066 parsecs


----------



## CKM367

The author told me that they often say so, it is a colloquialism however illogical it seems, and she did not mean any ignorance.
I am afraid it reflects English conception of space and time.


----------



## Loob

sdgraham said:


> ... When all else fails, see the dictionary:


Here you go, MrG:

WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English © 2015
[...]
*light-years,* [plural]
​

a very great measure of comparison:
Today's computers are light-years ahead of older ones in power and memory.
​ 


a very long time:
Vacation already seemed light-years away.
​ 



CKM367 said:


> The author told me that they often say so, it is a colloquialism however illogical it seems, and she did not mean any ignorance.
> I am afraid it reflects English conception of space and time.


Yes, I'd say it has "idiom" status.  I doubt it reflects English conceptions of space and time - though maybe it does.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings



> The hours in going from one place to another by some kind of conveyance  such as a plane, car, or train are clearly understood to be measures of  time, i.e. the time it takes to get from point A  to point B.



As an irreverent footnote, may I point out that in rural Greece (and perhaps elsewhere) walking distances used to be measured in cigarettes. "Heraklion is three cigarettes away".

Σ


----------



## wandle

In the examples quoted in post 17, it seems clear that the phrase 'light years' (the hyphen seems quite out of place) is in fact expressing distance, as we can see from the adverbs 'ahead' and 'away'.
The two examples would still work if the phrase 'thousands of miles', or just 'miles', were substituted for 'light years'.
Conclusion: 'light years' is valid in those examples.

However, that kind of substitution does not work in the topic sentence _'It all seems such light years ago'_.

The word 'ago' shows that this one is indeed about time. We could not say 'such thousands of miles ago'.
Conlcusion: 'light years' is a mistake in this case.


----------



## PaulQ

CKM367 said:


> Sarah Rayner, in her 'One Morning, One Moment', used such a phrase:
> 
> *It all seems such light years ago . . .*


There's not much doubt that we say:

"Twenty-first century medicine is miles ahead of the medicine our grandparents knew, although there were people even then who were years ahead_ in research/of their time._" but the formula is 'miles (distance) ahead' - 'years (time) ahead/ago'. 

What is not conventional is <distance> ago as a figurative/extended usage to indicate an earlier point in time. "Oh, very observant! "We have lost the key." you say, well, we all knew that *miles ago*!" can only be used where the speaker (and listener) have been/are travelling. 

The example, *It all seems such light years ago, *cannot be used idiomatically not only for that reason but because *such + standard distance* - e.g. such miles - is simply wrong.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> [...]
> The example, *It all seems such light years ago, *cannot be used idiomatically [...]


It cannot be, but it *is *. 

From an Advanced Learners' Dictionary first published as long ago as 1987 (_Wordsworth Advanced Learners' Dictionary_, Turton):





> Many scientific terms involve the adoption of words in common usage and their redefinition in a more resticted sense. [...] Sometimes, however, the opposite process occurs.  This is when a scientific term re-enters general usage with a meaning quite different from its scientific sense.  For example, *light years ago* is now widely used in everyday English to mean 'ages ago', but in astronomy the phrase is nonsensical.


----------



## wandle

> *light years ago* is now widely used in everyday English to mean 'ages ago'


That statement in my view means: people make that mistake in everyday usage.

We need to maintain the key distinction between correct written English on the one hand and colloquial usage on the other.
Illogical or mistaken expressions occur all the time in colloquial English. We can recognise that as a fact while maintaining the line between correct and incorrect usage in the written language.

Let us please avoid trying to treat all English usage as equally valid.


----------



## Loob

I have no problem with that sentiment, wandle.  As the author of CKM's quote has told CKM:





CKM367 said:


> [...] it is a colloquialism however illogical it seems [...]


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> It cannot be, but it *is *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> From an Advanced Learners' Dictionary first published as long ago as 1987 (_Wordsworth Advanced Learners' Dictionary_, Turton):


As the words of the song, Jackson Square, say: "Just because you say it doesn't make it true." (The 'you', here, being your source.)

The other thing is that the claim, all but 30 years ago, that "light years ago is now (i.e. then) widely used in everyday English to mean 'ages ago'," seems to have been said without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence. (Subjectively, I cannot remember anyone saying 'light years ago' to mean 'ages ago.')

Even if we are generous, the best we can say of the quote is "Well, it might have been true then and within a limited part of the population." In 30 years, the world had come a long way and, because of the popularisation of science, terms that were self-interpreted are now better understood.

I would use as examples, "the internets" and "the interweb" as "terms your mother might use" but, although they might have had a currency, are not now used (other than humorously) and patently erroneous. Thus, whatever else, students should be discouraged from using it (as should authors, save where, as etb points out, the stupidity of the character makes it acceptable.)

I would therefore dismiss Wordsworth Advanced Learners' Dictionary, as a guide to present use and correctness and doubt its accuracy both at the time and now.

Finally, I repeat, *It all seems such light years ago . . . *we do not say "*such *miles ago" or "*such *years ago", so the OP's question _must _be answered by "No, we don't say that."


----------



## velisarius

I haven't seen anybody claiming that this usage indicates "stupidity". Lack of a "good education" doesn't make someone stupid. In fact I know several stupid people with college degrees and a good command of the English language..


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> ... I would therefore dismiss Wordsworth Advanced  Learners' Dictionary, as a guide to present use and correctness and  doubt its accuracy both at the time and now.


That's your prerogative, Paul.  I've simply been trying to shed some light on why the character in the novel said "It seems such light years ago" when it doesn't make sense in physics terms.  I'll stop now!

-------

*Added*:
Except that, having now seen your edit:





PaulQ said:


> Finally, I repeat, *It all seems such light years ago . . . *we do not say "*such *miles ago" or "*such *years ago", so the OP's question _must _be answered by "No, we don't say that."


I have to add 'But people do say "such ages ago".'


----------



## PaulQ

velisarius said:


> I haven't seen anybody claiming that this usage indicates "stupidity". Lack of a "good education" doesn't make someone stupid. In fact I know several stupid people with college degrees and a good command of the English language..


Apologies, it was not etb, it was CKM367 at #6



Loob said:


> That's your prerogative, Paul.  I've simply been trying to shed some light on why the character in the novel said "It seems such ages ago" when it doesn't make sense in physics terms.  I'll stop now!


 Is nobody going to argue with "*It all seems such light years ago . . . *we do not say "*such *miles ago" or "*such *years ago", so the OP's question _must _be answered by "No, we don't say that."?

If not, case closed!


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> ... Is nobody going to argue with "*It all seems such light years ago . . . *we do not say "*such *miles ago" or "*such *years ago", so the OP's question _must _be answered by "No, we don't say that."?
> 
> If not, case closed!


I just did, Paul - see the edit to my last post.  

Now I really must stop!


----------



## velisarius

Let me refresh your memory Paul: ignorance.


----------



## Insom

It's a harmless (albeit technically wrong) exercise of artistic licence.

This kind of metaphor would usually raise few eyebrows, and I suspect the most disagreeable thing about this particular one is the idea that the author doesn't know it's a mistake (presumably there are those who indeed don't know light years are a measure of distance).


----------



## wandle

I would partly agree. Licence, yes: artistic, no.


----------



## PaulQ

velisarius said:


> Let me refresh your memory Paul: ignorance.


I suspect CKM was being polite to a fictitious character.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Paul,

I'm just noting the shift in your (and some others', e.g. sdgraham's) position here.   Initially it was 'light years' is for distance only; for time it's ignorant.   Now, however, you are focussing on one particular awkward phrasing involving 'ago'.   It would appear you have conceded the main point that 'light years' in a number of possible sentences not about physical distance, is acceptable.   

I believe Wandle has done so, as well.   For this example, 


> Vacation already seemed light-years away.  {from WR-RH}



Wandle concluded,  





> Conclusion: 'light years' is valid in those examples.



None of you rigorists has commented on my proposal, above.



> Would you accept  _<not sure he could endure what seemed light years to the time of his release from captivity>_  ?


   {variant of M-W example}

As you've pointed out, there are, similarly, awkward ways to use words like 'miles' for non physical situations, but this does not negate that such is done quite properly, by literate users.




PaulQ said:


> There's not much doubt that we say:
> 
> "Twenty-first century medicine is miles ahead of the medicine our grandparents knew, although there were people even then who were years ahead_ in research/of their time._" but the formula is 'miles (distance) ahead' - 'years (time) ahead/ago'.
> 
> What is not conventional is <distance> ago as a figurative/extended usage to indicate an earlier point in time. "Oh, very observant! "We have lost the key." you say, well, we all knew that *miles ago*!" can only be used where the speaker (and listener) have been/are travelling.
> 
> The example, *It all seems such light years ago, *cannot be used idiomatically not only for that reason but because *such + standard distance* - e.g. such miles - is simply wrong.


----------



## jmichaelm

Loob said:


> Here you go, MrG:
> 
> WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English © 2015
> [...]
> *light-years,* [plural]
> ​
> 
> a very great measure of comparison:
> Today's computers are light-years ahead of older ones in power and memory.
> ​



I find this definition unfortunate, though accurate, and I agree that many people regularly use _light-year_ in a context that implies time or a great difference. However, I have never met anyone sufficiently educated in science to know the origin of the term light-year who adopted this usage. I have to stand with those who believe this usage demonstrates scientific ignorance.


----------



## PaulQ

bennymix said:


> I'm just noting the shift in your (and some others', e.g. sdgraham's) position here.   Initially it was 'light years' is for distance only; for time it's ignorant.   Now, however, you are focussing on one particular awkward phrasing involving 'ago'.   It would appear you have conceded the main point that 'light years' in a number of possible sentences not about physical distance, is acceptable.


No, not at all. I was rather hoping people would bear in mind the 'distance only' part and add to that the lesser arguments. 

I, perhaps naively, assumed that the 'distance only' part would be the end of the matter: the triumph of science over the uninformed. However, to my surprise, although the argument was dead it would not lie down. 

Faced with this, the 'ago' argument, like the stake through the vampire's heart, had to be called upon... and still the undead walked!

Surely the accursed phrase was dead once the grotesque 'such' construction was exposed to daylight? But no! Where is Van Helsing when you want him? 

And still people (I'm looking at you, Loob and bennymix) say, "Oh yes, I say "*It all seems such light years ago,"* all the time!





> None of you rigorists has commented on my proposal, above.


Is that "Vacation already seemed light-years away."? That's fine. A distance can be 'away'.



> but this does not negate that such is done quite properly, by literate users.


All I ask is that others substitute any other unit of distance into the phrase, and say it slowly, as you attempt the first question on the exam paper:

1. "It all seems such _______ ago,"

A: gallons
B: miles
C: light years
D: a long time


----------



## Phil-Olly

From an Advanced Learners' Dictionary first published as long ago as 1987 (_Wordsworth Advanced Learners' Dictionary_, Turton):
Many scientific terms involve the adoption of words in common usage and their redefinition in a more resticted sense. [...] Sometimes, however, the opposite process occurs. This is when a scientific term re-enters general usage with a meaning quite different from its scientific sense. For example, *light years ago* is now widely used in everyday English to mean 'ages ago', but in astronomy the phrase is nonsensical.


And ....'Black hole', which keeps cropping up in the economy, meaning, presumably, a hole, which happens to be black!


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> It would appear you have conceded the main point that 'light years' in a number of possible sentences not about physical distance, is acceptable.
> I believe Wandle has done so, as well. For this example,
> 
> 
> 
> Vacation already seemed light-years away. {from WR-RH}
> 
> 
> 
> Wandle concluded,
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion: 'light years' is valid in those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The point is that the phrase 'light years away' is valid because it is expressing distance. 
We can see that it is expressing distance because it uses the word 'away'.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> attempt the first question on the exam paper:
> 
> 1. "It all seems such _______ ago,"
> 
> A: gallons
> B: miles
> C: light years
> D: a long time


I like it.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

PaulQ I take my hat off to you for perseverance.  I would have given up long ago.  Thanks you for standing up for common sense.

PhilOlly, A black hole in the economy is something that sucks money into it and from which the money simply disappears for ever.  Just like a real black hole.


----------



## bennymix

Again, Paul, you are focusing on particular, possibly awkward phrasings and ignoring the basic point.   There is cross fertilization of time and distance measure.   And it applies with past, present or future.

The word 'long' means 'extended in space,' initially.   But we say,  "The play goes on a long time."    Likewise,  "The play was produced long ago."

Similarly,  "He went to a far away place" may be primary, but we also say, "It happened in a far away time."

So it is hardly surprising that a measure of a REALLY long distance, a 'light year' might be applied where a really long time (not one year!) is involved.  Hence,
I can live with,  "The tragedy of the Carthaginians happened a light year ago {or, I'd prefer 'back'}."




> What is not conventional is <distance> ago as a  figurative/extended usage to indicate an earlier point in time. "Oh,  very observant! "We have lost the key." you say, well, we all knew that *miles ago*!" can only be used where the speaker (and listener) have been/are travelling.


----------



## PaulQ

bennymix said:


> There is cross fertilization of time and distance measure.


Einstein concluded that also but did not apply it to grammar.  I am quite happy with "'long' means 'extended in space,' and time. I am happy with "The play was produced long ago." There is no dispute.

"The play was produced long miles ago." is wrong - although "The play was produced long years ago." is poetic but right. It is not 'long' that makes the difference but rather that the initial question revolve around the use of specific units of measurement of distance to indicate time.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> ...There is no dispute.
> ...


I really-really-really think there's no dispute in this thread *as a whole*.

We're all agreed that "light years" is properly a measure of distance.

We're all agreed that when people say "light years ago", they're using "light years" as a measure of time, not distance.

I even think we're all agreed that "light years ago" is something that people do, in practice, say: certainly your post 5 seems to indicate that, Paul.  I'm not sure why this thread has reached 40-odd posts

With that, I'll retreat to my determination to *stop posting in the thread*.

----------

EDIT: Ah, perhaps what we have here is the age-old dichotomy between prescriptivists and descriptivists?
Prescriptivists: You shouldn't say "light years ago".
Descriptivists: But people do!


----------



## PaulQ

I have also decided not to post again, however, if I had not promised that, I would have remarked upon:





CKM367 said:


> *It all seems such light years ago . . .* Light year is a measure of length, it is just year is a measure of time. Is such a phrase normal in English?


The post, like Topsy has 'just growed' because we were asked an opinion, not a fact. People say all manner of things, some better formed in logic and grammar than others.

I don't think any of us recommend *It all seems such light years ago . . .* to any student of English.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> ...I don't think any of us recommend *It all seems such light years ago . . .* to any student of English.


----------

