0

I recently came across the definition for length - Merriam-Webster defines it as

the longer or longest dimension of an object

(other dictionaries have similar definitions).

This is not how I think I use it, and I'm wondering if I'm in the minority. To me, 'length' refers to the more natural dimension and 'width' to the less natural dimension. If the object has a natural up orientation, that dimension is usually 'height' and the others are 'length' and 'width'.

For example, a squat cylinder, if not placed flat on the ground, would be short (its length would be small) and wide (its width would be great). Also, a chair with enormous armrests but only seating space for one person might not be long but it could be very wide.

Is this definition of length wrong or incomplete or am I using 'length' in an unusual manner? Obviously, I don't expect Merriam-Webster to change the definition - it should be both correct and simple, and my definition might be complex.

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    I think you'd start dropping 'length' with your cylinder (height and radius) and chair (height, width and depth). A square is obviously as broad as it is long, so labelling one side the 'length' would be arbitrary. // With a natural axis, perhaps the length could be smaller than the width. A very squat square-cross-sectional sausage, perhaps. Rare.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Oct 22, 2019 at 16:54
  • Not every three dimensional object naturally has a "length". In practice, things like chairs rarely do (unless they're effectively "loungers"). It's a bit pointless trying to find a generic definition for the "length" dimension of inappropriate objects.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Oct 22, 2019 at 17:25
  • @EdwinAshworth Maybe a more natural usage, then: In D&D, if a creature has a breath weapon it might be described as affecting a 30 foot long, 5 foot wide line emanating from that creature - normal usage. Then an attack which can hit creatures in the square in front of you and the two squares adjacent to that creature can be described as being 5 feet long and 15 feet wide, and I think that's the most natural way to describe it.
    – Spitemaster
    Commented Oct 22, 2019 at 17:25
  • 1
    D&D: a more natural usage? Note that reputable dictionaries carry out controlled surveys to see how words are most commonly used, and either quite acceptably don't pick up, or disregard niche usages. Jargon, in gaming, chemistry, archaeology, maths, law, technology, art, antiques ... , belongs properly in dedicated works (and ELU looks at standard usages).
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Oct 22, 2019 at 18:39
  • 1
    Try to see (and bear in mind at all times) the difference in meaning of a word in general English usage and specific domain usage or contextual usage.
    – Kris
    Commented Oct 23, 2019 at 12:38

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Yes, you have a point. I note that the definition provided in the Cambridge English online dictionary is similar.

the measurement of something from end to end or along its longest side:

It is difficult to provide an ideal definition that covers all circumstances. In geometry, for example, in its purest form, length is a property of a line - any line. So we can describe lines in terms their two ends. So a rectangle, ABCD can be described as having parallel lines, AB and CD, of equal length and parallel lines, AD and BC of equal length and at right angles to AB and CD. There is no need for a reference to width.

In the case of of triangles, all three lines have a 'length', as do the sides of any other polygon.

However, when it comes to area you will often encounter length by breadth/width. And volume is often referred to as length times breadth times height. Height is referred to in triangles, when the area is calculated as length times vertical height.

I think the Merriam and Cambridge idea of length of a two-dimensional object as the longer or longest sides. But essentially what we are concerned with, not mentioned in the dictionaries I have checked, is orientation, though I have not found that word used

And this seems to be the point you are making, in speaking of an extremely wide armchair. We (most of us) do think of that as wide rather than long. In the end, it comes down to how we 'stand' to the thing described. And the language used varies considerably. For example, for furniture, when speaking of cabinetry, specifications tend to speak of width, depth (front to back) and height. We face them; they are against a wall, so that there is a sense of width rather than breadth or length.

Nevertheless, there is some truth in saying that of, say, a table, the length is (are) its longer side(s) and the width/breadth is (are) the shorter.

Improve this answer
1
  • I agree. The definition really refers to two-dimensional objects — one wouldn't refer to the length of a skyscraper, for example, although one could refer to the length of the Great Wall of China. But length clearly derives from "long", and probably was used originally only in the context of two-dimensionality. Even MW's use of "side" has this implicit suggestion.
    – David
    Commented Nov 12, 2019 at 13:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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