To pay the price

Bo · Post by Bo » Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:00 am

Hi everyone,

would you say that " to pay the price" always has a negative connotation? I'll give you a bit of a context as well: "Now the prospect of Reich loomed, where before there had been only the tame Federal Republic. If offering up the mark will banish that prospect, he is willing to pay the price." Now does pay the price here connote something negative or positive?

Ta!

Bo

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:28 pm

Yes, I would.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:34 pm

I feel that the phrase is negative, because sacrifice is involved, and in your example context, that sacrifice may not have the desired effect/outcome (especially in other people's opinions - the conditional serves almost as a "hedger" for the writer).

It would be interesting if you were to investigate if the phrase occurs much in past contexts, about which the relative success or faliure of the sacrifice were known and more accepted or appreciated.

In "successful/positive" instances (e.g. soviet submariners on the K-19 who were willing to die to save the rest of the crew and avert a crisis etc), success nobility praise etc would all be due to these ones who did the sacrificing, and we could therefore talk about the positive aspects of the deed, the bigger picture etc, but ultimately paying the price still had negative consequences (in this instance, for the brave heroes, death!), and we would probably at least privately lament the fact that nuclear subs are called for in the first place (with all their risks and dangers).

This seems to be an instance where even collocations etc will not help - you maybe need to look at how the event is viewed by society as a whole as history, and think about what people do and don't say as matters of decency and taste in relation to the event - "encyclopedic/world knowledge" (not a matter of form)?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:17 am

I dunno, I kind of think maybe the original question ought to have been directed at the phrase: willing to pay the price, given the context in which it appears. Chopping off the first word seems to leave a different feeling in one's stomach. If we do consider the longer phrase, perhaps it could be considered positive. But then, what is one man's beast is often another's burden.

Larry Latham

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:30 am

Hehe I was trying to think of something like "beast...burden", Larry! Meat...poison, pros and cons etc. Guess I had writer's block or something.

Anyway I was kind of thinking along the lines of:

He is/was willing to pay the price = potentially positive (laudable), if you happen to agree that it is a good idea in principle (and probably the writer does), worthy of the sacrifice

?He pays the price = literally?!

He paid the price ("willingly and heroically"...or "for his stupidity"?!)

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:08 pm

It is always negative because as Duncan points out, it involves sacrifice. However, we may say that it was a price worth paying, suggesting that the sacrifice was not in vain, and that things are better now as a result of the sacrifice.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:10 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:It is always negative because as Duncan points out, it involves sacrifice.

Mebbe. But does sacrifice always connote negativity? As a parent, I certainly have sacrificed for my kids, but I don't regard any of that as negative. However, as I said above, one man's beast.....

My point is, I'd say "no" to Bo's original question. It all depends...

Larry Latham