Interesting - Wiktionary says that the phrase was originally “heels over head”, which makes sense when conveying the sense of tumbling over. I guess that became corrupted, resulting in “head over heels”. Maybe I should start saying “heels over head” then.
Consider the distinction between accurate and efficient. If your way of speaking becomes technically correct by some standard, but inefficient for the purpose of communication, is that really a desirable outcome? Does it have to be perfect, or just good enough to convey thoughts?
Now reading it, I never directly realized it being this (wrong) way in the english language. In German the equivalent term would be “Hals über Kopf” (Neck over head) which made sense for a feeling of the world being upside down. Funny that in English it is actually the “normal” worldview - at least how the modern expression goes.
I mean, the main point is that language doesn’t have to make “logical” sense. It’s not a math problem. Just look at all the inconsistencies in pretty much every aspect of a language. It’s all there simply because of history and people agreeing on meanings for words and phrases. For example, you’ve got something like prepositions. There’s literally zero logical reason why we talk or speak to someone, but we don’t tell or converse to someone.
And people who are more rigid in thinking about language always seem to think the language they learned growing up is the most “correct” version, whether that has a basis in history or not. Like even though literally has been used as an intensifier for (literally) hundreds of years, that seems to be a sticking point, whereas something like very, which has a similar root (veracis meaning truth), any sentence using very doesn’t have to have an exact truthful meaning.
Hell, once we go back to “original” meanings of words, where do we stop? The singular use of “they” is older than that of singular “you”, but I somehow never see the “singular they is confusing” crowd advocating for a return to thee/thou.
Interesting - Wiktionary says that the phrase was originally “heels over head”, which makes sense when conveying the sense of tumbling over. I guess that became corrupted, resulting in “head over heels”. Maybe I should start saying “heels over head” then.
Consider the distinction between accurate and efficient. If your way of speaking becomes technically correct by some standard, but inefficient for the purpose of communication, is that really a desirable outcome? Does it have to be perfect, or just good enough to convey thoughts?
Now reading it, I never directly realized it being this (wrong) way in the english language. In German the equivalent term would be “Hals über Kopf” (Neck over head) which made sense for a feeling of the world being upside down. Funny that in English it is actually the “normal” worldview - at least how the modern expression goes.
I mean, the main point is that language doesn’t have to make “logical” sense. It’s not a math problem. Just look at all the inconsistencies in pretty much every aspect of a language. It’s all there simply because of history and people agreeing on meanings for words and phrases. For example, you’ve got something like prepositions. There’s literally zero logical reason why we talk or speak to someone, but we don’t tell or converse to someone.
And people who are more rigid in thinking about language always seem to think the language they learned growing up is the most “correct” version, whether that has a basis in history or not. Like even though literally has been used as an intensifier for (literally) hundreds of years, that seems to be a sticking point, whereas something like very, which has a similar root (veracis meaning truth), any sentence using very doesn’t have to have an exact truthful meaning.
Hell, once we go back to “original” meanings of words, where do we stop? The singular use of “they” is older than that of singular “you”, but I somehow never see the “singular they is confusing” crowd advocating for a return to thee/thou.
It’s still “Hals über Kopf” (neck over head) in German.