1

I was reading the paper today about a skier

...losing control on an icy ski slope and colliding with a tree.

This seems to be rather a strange usage of collide; the word seems to me to carry the implication that the things that collide are both active agents, and the tree cannot by any stretch of the imagination be held responsible for this accident. This definition here seems to support that idea:-

to strike one another or one against the other with a forceful impact; come into violent contact; crash: The two cars collided with an ear-splitting crash.

Is that so, or can stationary or even immobile objects collide with things?

2
  • 3
    Have you never been attacked by a lamp-post, taking mean advantage of your distraction/inebriation? Commented Oct 16, 2013 at 11:38
  • 1
    The skier collided with the tree. The skier was moving; the tree did not collide with the skier.
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Oct 16, 2013 at 12:08

1 Answer 1

6

‘Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage’ has the answer (my emphasis):

By far the greatest number of our citations for collide are figurative, in which ideologies, politicians, nations, searing glances, and the like collide. In these uses relative motion is not a consideration. We thus suspect that you will seldom have to worry about this matter. If you do, you may be assured that collide is standard, even when only one body is in motion.

2
  • But since RHK Webster's also has the answer ( col•lide ... v.i. 1. to strike one another or one against the other with a forceful impact; crash. ... (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary) surely this is General Reference. Commented Oct 16, 2013 at 16:45
  • Perhaps, but there does seem to have been some disagreement about it, at least in the past. Commented Oct 16, 2013 at 18:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .