Could the fact that o and i are next to each other on a computer keyboard possibly have something to do with it?
Just a thought.
Preposition question.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Invisible words....
Hey all.
Been avoiding comment on those little buggers (prepositions, that is, wild words they are) but this one I'll risk.
Been teaching "invisible" words these days, those words that are "understood", like the "you" in the imperative, or the "do, does, did" in simple affirmations. Which made me see the invisible words:
He was born on (the island of) Iceland.
He was born in (the country of) Iceland.
"on" a surface with two dimensions, length and width.
"in" an enclosed space with three dimensions, length, width and height, a country often being conceptually considered such.
Let the example-making begin!
peace,
revel.
Been avoiding comment on those little buggers (prepositions, that is, wild words they are) but this one I'll risk.
Been teaching "invisible" words these days, those words that are "understood", like the "you" in the imperative, or the "do, does, did" in simple affirmations. Which made me see the invisible words:
He was born on (the island of) Iceland.
He was born in (the country of) Iceland.
"on" a surface with two dimensions, length and width.
"in" an enclosed space with three dimensions, length, width and height, a country often being conceptually considered such.
Let the example-making begin!
peace,
revel.
Re: Invisible words....
Hi Rev!revel wrote:Hey all.
Been avoiding comment on those little buggers (prepositions, that is, wild words they are) but this one I'll risk.
Been teaching "invisible" words these days, those words that are "understood", like the "you" in the imperative, or the "do, does, did" in simple affirmations. Which made me see the invisible words:
He was born on (the island of) Iceland.
He was born in (the country of) Iceland.
"on" a surface with two dimensions, length and width.
"in" an enclosed space with three dimensions, length, width and height, a country often being conceptually considered such.
Let the example-making begin!
peace,
revel.
Whoopee! On-ness and in-ness - many times subjective in use.
I'll meet you at New York.
Find the invisible words in the above.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
If you check out these sites, you'll see it was also typed by others:lolwhites wrote:And typed up by someone else. I'm not saying it's what happened, but cinsoder ot, ot's pissoble.Well, as it was spoken by Heyerdahl ...
Niels Ryberg Finsen was born on December 15, 1860, at Thorshavn in the Faroe Islands. His father, Hannes Steingrim Finsen, belonged to an Icelandic family with traditions reaching back to the 10th century, and occupied prominent (from 1871 the highest) positions in the administration of the Faroe Islands.
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureate ... n-bio.html
Probably born on Iceland around 970, son of Eric the Red, who founded the farmstead in Brattahlid in the end of the 10th century. Leif made the first ...
http://viking.hgo.se/db_search/who_is_w ... php?Name=t
Leif Ericsson (0970-1020).
Norwegian explorer, born on Iceland, grew up on Greenland, discovered Vinland (grassland or wineland), believed to be part of North America.
Son of Eric Thorvaldson ("Eric the Red"), a Norwegian, banished from Norway and banished from Iceland, who discovered and colonized Greenland.
http://frank.peinemann.bei.t-online.de/ ... oryusa.htm
Din't git me wring, M56, I'm certainly not saying that every instance of on is a typo; I've already pointed out why I think the two are possible in many contexts. It still seems likely in some cases that someone may have intended to type one thing and did another, and the spellchecker wouldn't have noticed.
At the end of the day, we have no way of knowing if it was ontentional or nit for each individual case.
Anyway, I'm iff for my hilidays now, so I'll see you all in 2005.
At the end of the day, we have no way of knowing if it was ontentional or nit for each individual case.
Anyway, I'm iff for my hilidays now, so I'll see you all in 2005.
Have a gud un!lolwhites wrote:Din't git me wring, M56, I'm certainly not saying that every instance of on is a typo; I've already pointed out why I think the two are possible in many contexts. It still seems likely in some cases that someone may have intended to type one thing and did another, and the spellchecker wouldn't have noticed.
At the end of the day, we have no way of knowing if it was ontentional or nit for each individual case.
Anyway, I'm iff for my hilidays now, so I'll see you all in 2005.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I just got around to reading this thread. 
Some of you are making an argument that "on" is acceptable if the island is small, but not so with a large island like Greenland.
This argument is problematic, since it begs the question of how small is small enough. 10,000 acres, or less...use "on". 10,001, or more...use "in". Somehow, I don't feel comfortable with that argument. I think we'll have to look elsewhere for a better criterion.
It seems to me that the selection is based entirely on the psychological attitude of the selector at the moment of use. (S)he can either think of Greenland as a landmass (island), or as a political entity. Either is equally proper, I should think. It is reasonable to be "on" a landmass, but just as properly acceptable to be "in" a country. So, in the end, it's just a momentary choice, nothing more, nothing less. But, as listeners, we have the opportunity to gain insight into the speaker's psychological point-of-view when he spoke, based on the choice he made. Lolwhites was on the mark earlier when he said, "the problem arises when the island is also a country."
Larry Latham
Some of you are making an argument that "on" is acceptable if the island is small, but not so with a large island like Greenland.
This argument is problematic, since it begs the question of how small is small enough. 10,000 acres, or less...use "on". 10,001, or more...use "in". Somehow, I don't feel comfortable with that argument. I think we'll have to look elsewhere for a better criterion.
It seems to me that the selection is based entirely on the psychological attitude of the selector at the moment of use. (S)he can either think of Greenland as a landmass (island), or as a political entity. Either is equally proper, I should think. It is reasonable to be "on" a landmass, but just as properly acceptable to be "in" a country. So, in the end, it's just a momentary choice, nothing more, nothing less. But, as listeners, we have the opportunity to gain insight into the speaker's psychological point-of-view when he spoke, based on the choice he made. Lolwhites was on the mark earlier when he said, "the problem arises when the island is also a country."
Larry Latham