What is a mountain? and other language musings

[berberry]

In extreme northeast Mississippi there's a place called Woodall Mountain.  According to me, it isn't a mountain at all, it's a hill.  A rather tallish hill with lots of big beautiful rocks and lovely vistas, but at 807' it's a hill!  I think most of the locals who live around it would agree with me.  They have t-shirts that say "Ski Woodall Mountain!" (wikipedia said so, and when I was recently in Tishomingo county I saw some in a store), so the folks know it's a joke.  Yet the official name of this hill is "Woodall Mountain", and the name apparently dates to the 19th century. 

Personally, I think it's just possible that somebody's hard-of-hearing secretary was taking dictation for a document she had no idea would one day become source material and misheard the word "mound".  But oh well.

I remember a definition of 'mountain' that said a hill had to be something like 2k' high in order to be a mountain.  I used to have a big unabridged Oxford dictionary that would settle an issue like this quickly, but it burned up in a fire a few years ago.  Now I rely on google.

I think a lot of people rely on google for definitions nowadays.  And for better or worse, it's changing the language.  Check out the new definition for 'mountain' - straight from google: 

moun·tain/ˈmountn/
Noun:   
1. A large natural elevation of the earth's surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level; a large steep hill.

2. A region where there are many such features, characterized by remoteness and inaccessibility.

I remember a Hugh Grant picture from the 90s where the plot concerned one method of turning a hill into a mountain.  While we weren't looking, somebody found another way.

So there really ARE mountains in Mississippi!

[SSOWorld]

Kinda like those weather terms - Tornado or Water spout? Clouds or fog? Partly Cloudy or Mostly Sunny, Mostly Cloudy or Partly Sunny?  Sunny or Clear? Hurricane or Typhoon or Tropical Cyclone?

What is it anyway!!!????

[NE2]

I would say prominence should play a part in any technical definition.

Anyway I've been to the top of a local "mountain": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf_Mountain_(Florida)

[1995hoo]

I have a copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on my bookcase here and its first definition is as follows:

"1 A large natural elevation of the earth's surface, esp. one high and steep in form (larger and higher than a hill) and with a summit of relatively small area. Also in pl., such elevations constituting a region characterized by remoteness and inaccessibility."

There are other sub-definitions as well. The first definition of "hill" is "1 A natural elevation of the earth's surface; a small mountain ...." (The ellipsis denotes a figurative meaning not relevant here.)

I think there's something to be said for the idea of a relative meaning to this sort of thing. It seems sensible enough to me that what people in a low-lying or flat area consider a "mountain" would be very different from what people in a place like, say, Colorado consider a "mountain." I've seen this sort of thing in the skiing context, for example–many years ago on a Boy Scout trip to Seven Springs in Pennsylvania I regarded it as a "ski hill" (vertical drop 750 feet) compared to the mountains in Vermont, whereas some of the other kids had never been skiing anywhere else and thought it was a big mountain. I can understand that when you have no other point of reference for comparison.

It also seems to me to make some sense that if a particular "hill" (or whatever) is notably higher than any of the other surrounding terrain someone might have named it a "mountain," though that's more in the nature of a rhetorical device than anything else.

[berberry]

It also seems to me to make some sense that if a particular "hill" (or whatever) is notably higher than any of the other surrounding terrain someone might have named it a "mountain," though that's more in the nature of a rhetorical device than anything else.

It is indeed notably higher than the surrounding terrain, but that's not unusual for a hill, in my experience.  Woodall Mountain lies at the southern end of the Appalachian range, but it is a part of what I've always understood to be the foothills.  Thus, to my mind, it should be called a hill.

Since you cited the Oxford dictionary I'll take your word for it, but I think the definition has changed since I was in school.  I remember this issue coming up in class, about this very same "mountain".  I can't remember exactly how the teacher resolved it, but resolve it he did and in favor of the 'hill' definition.  For some reason, I remember that as being the point where I learned of the 2k' definition for 'mountain', but I suppose it could have been that Hugh Grant movie.

[1995hoo]

It also seems to me to make some sense that if a particular "hill" (or whatever) is notably higher than any of the other surrounding terrain someone might have named it a "mountain," though that's more in the nature of a rhetorical device than anything else.

It is indeed notably higher than the surrounding terrain, but that's not unusual for a hill, in my experience.  Woodall Mountain lies at the southern end of the Appalachian range, but it is a part of what I've always understood to be the foothills.  Thus, to my mind, it should be called a hill.

Since you cited the Oxford dictionary I'll take your word for it, but I think the definition has changed since I was in school.  I remember this issue coming up in class, about this very same "mountain".  I can't remember exactly how the teacher resolved it, but resolve it he did and in favor of the 'hill' definition.  For some reason, I remember that as being the point where I learned of the 2k' definition for 'mountain', but I suppose it could have been that Hugh Grant movie.

Well, the problem with the Oxford definition I cited is that it's a bit circular in that "mountain" is defined in comparison to a "hill," but in turn a "hill" is defined in terms of a "small mountain." That's the type of thing that when I was a kid my teachers would have docked points for had I written a definition that way!

I think as a practical matter it boils down to the difference between a name applied to a particular geographic feature compared to the name applied to a more generalized class of geographic feature, such that there's a difference between referring to "mountains" in general versus a particular high point. Incidentally, the highest point in the State of Rhode Island is Jerimoth Hill, which rises to 812 feet above sea level (five feet more than the Woodall Mountain you mention).

[english si]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Englishman_Who_Went_Up_a_Hill_But_Came_Down_a_Mountain <- here's the Hugh Grant film.

It's not actually true, especially as (while peaking at 1007ft above sea level) the hill that the story was alleged to have happened on is far too short - it seems that mountains in Scotland are >2500ft high, and, it seems, >2000ft high in England and Wales (where there film is set).

There's no hard and fast definition - peaks in England, Wales and Ireland over 2000' with a prominence of >30m are "Hewitts" (Hills in England, Wales and Ireland over Two Thousand feet) but peaks in England and Wales over 2000' and with a prominence of >15m are listed in a book "Mountains of England and Wales". I guess the acronym might have something to do with it.

A UN document gives the following definitions:
Height over base of at least 2,500 m (8,202 ft);
Height over base of 1,500 m (4,921 ft).—2,500 m (8,202 ft). with a slope greater than 2 degrees
Height over base of 1,000 m (3,281 ft).—1,500 m (4,921 ft). with a slope greater than 5 degrees
Local (radius 7,000 m (22,966 ft). elevation greater than 300 m (984 ft)., or 300 m (984 ft)—1,000 m (3,281 ft). if local (radius 7,000 m (22,966 ft). elevation is greater than 300 m (984 ft).

I've heard some claims that The Wrekin, in Shropshire is the tallest hill in the world with a local elevation of 298m. The Welsh hill in the film has a local elevation far lower, as the ground level is highish there.

[J N Winkler]

For these doubtful cases I use the (evasive) phrase "local eminence."

[berberry]

Anyway I've been to the top of a local "mountain": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarloaf_Mountain_(Florida)

Yeah, I've been to that one now that you mention it.  I'd forgotten about it.  As I remember it doesn't have much of what you'd call a summit, but it is visible from some distance away.

I wonder if Sugarloaf Mountain was named by a Chamber of Commerce or a tourism board.  Maybe not, because with all Florida has to offer to tourists, it would seem silly for them to seriously promote the idea of mountains in that state.

[SSOWorld]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Englishman_Who_Went_Up_a_Hill_But_Came_Down_a_Mountain <- here's the Hugh Grant film.

It's not actually true, especially as (while peaking at 1007ft above sea level) the hill that the story was alleged to have happened on is far too short - it seems that mountains in Scotland are >2500ft high, and, it seems, >2000ft high in England and Wales (where there film is set).

There's no hard and fast definition - peaks in England, Wales and Ireland over 2000' with a prominence of >30m are "Hewitts" (Hills in England, Wales and Ireland over Two Thousand feet) but peaks in England and Wales over 2000' and with a prominence of >15m are listed in a book "Mountains of England and Wales". I guess the acronym might have something to do with it.

A UN document gives the following definitions:
Height over base of at least 2,500 m (8,202 ft);
Height over base of 1,500 m (4,921 ft).—2,500 m (8,202 ft). with a slope greater than 2 degrees
Height over base of 1,000 m (3,281 ft).—1,500 m (4,921 ft). with a slope greater than 5 degrees
Local (radius 7,000 m (22,966 ft). elevation greater than 300 m (984 ft)., or 300 m (984 ft)—1,000 m (3,281 ft). if local (radius 7,000 m (22,966 ft). elevation is greater than 300 m (984 ft).

I've heard some claims that The Wrekin, in Shropshire is the tallest hill in the world with a local elevation of 298m. The Welsh hill in the film has a local elevation far lower, as the ground level is highish there.

Leave it to the UN to categorize stuff.

[realjd]

Florida also has Hobe Mountain in Jonathan Dickinson SP just outside of Stuart. Elevation 86 feet. They had to put an observation tower on top to improve the view.

[Michael in Philly]

To Master son:

Really.  And in a language which is mostly spoken in countries that haven't used metric until recently, why on earth would the cutoffs be in meters.  Although, don't say that on Skyscraper City.  I did.  [shudder]

[enters language-geek mode]  Language is invented, and changed over time, by its users.  Particularly English, which has never had anything like an Académie française, that can make pronouncements that will be taken seriously by professional writers and educators and percolate through the school system....  Outside agencies like the U.N. have no jurisdiction over this sort of thing.  A roadgeek example:  the MUTCD may say that "freeway" and "expressway" mean different things, but in huge chunks of the country, they're used interchangeably (so to speak).  Are those of us who use them interchangeably (most of whom have never heard of the MUTCD) "incorrect"?  No.  The MUTCD applies to technical usage among people in the field.  So if the OED definition seems vague, that's because the language itself is - the OED's just doing its job of documenting that.  And if the OED, or the UN, or the U.S. Board of Geographic Names were to come up with a precise mathematical cutoff at which hills become mountains, most people would go on calling the, um, prominences in their own areas or that they're familiar with whatever they call them now.[exits language-geek mode]

Ahem.  Sorry.

That Hugh Grant movie's on cable some time today - don't remember the channel; I've programmed my DVR to catch it precisely because we had this argument on Skyscraper City a while back.

[huskeroadgeek]

Kansas's highest point is called "Mt. Sunflower", but it is really little more than a rise in the surrounding land just E. of the Colorado border. It's certainly not what you would think of when you think of a mountain.

[triplemultiplex]

I've often wondered how do they decide to call something Whatever Mountain versus Mount Whatever.  Does saying Mt. Whatever imply a peak in a range?  But there are thousands of Whatever Mountains in ranges.  The same can be applied to lakes.  Is it Lake Whatever or Whatever Lake?
Does it vary regionally?  Not really.  The same area can have both iterations.
Maybe size has something to do with it?  The biggest lakes in my part of the world are usually Lake Whatever.  But not always.

Do we just all gravitate to whichever sounds better?

"I visited Champlain Lake and Washington Mountain on my trip to New England".
Ick.
I wonder if other languages have to deal with this syntax in place names.

[SSOWorld]

Dunno - Mount Everest seems out of place in Nepal and China.

and why would i want to mount Washington anyway... 

[Scott5114]

There's also the curious Cavanal Hill, which is billed by Poteau as "the world's tallest hill" with a height of 1,999 ft (a dubious claim, to be sure).