"[T]he connections between metaphors are more likely to involve coherence than consistency." #readingTodayAs we go further into the 1980s, . . .We're approaching the end of the year.What we have here are two subcases of TIME PASSES US: in one case, we are moving and time is standing still; in the other, time is moving and we are standing still. What is in common is relative motion with respect to us, with the future in front and the past behind. That is, they are two subcases of the same metaphor. This is another way of saying that they have a major common entailment. Both metaphors entail that, from our point of view, time goes past us from front to back.Although the two metaphors are not consistent (that is, they form no single image), they nonetheless "fit together," by virtue of being subcategories of a major category and therefore sharing a major common entailment. There is a difference between metaphors that are coherent (that is, "fit together") with each other and those that are consistent. We have found that the connections between metaphors are more likely to involve coherence than consistency.