Another preposition puzzle

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:19 am

http://forest.facts.tripod.com/default.htm

In 1992 The heritage branch laughed, they told me they already new what the rock art I found represented and who made it.They said the art I found could not be made by a race of Caucasoid looking people 8,000 bc because " Kennewick mans people" did not live on America at that time. Only Indians lived on America.

What do you think of the use of "on" there?

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:09 am

Same as the other one--I wouldn't use "on" there either.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:42 am

Lorikeet wrote:Same as the other one--I wouldn't use "on" there either.

Why do you think the person is doing so?

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:00 am

This one seems even stranger to me than the Iceland/Greenland, in which admittedly someone could be thinking of "on an island."

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:28 am

I hope this thread keeps going. I am very curious to see what develops.

In service of that, I'll repeat M56's question, Lorikeet. Why do you think the 'righter' above chose that language? Should he be corrected?

Larry Latham

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:29 am

The web page seems replete with spelling mistakes, dodgy punctuation and captialisation and awkwardly worded phrases. Are you sure it was written by a native English speaker?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:40 am

Lorikeet wrote:Same as the other one--I wouldn't use "on" there either.

Would you use "born on the Continent" (European)?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:50 am

lolwhites wrote:The web page seems replete with spelling mistakes, dodgy punctuation and captialisation and awkwardly worded phrases. Are you sure it was written by a native English speaker?

Here's another:

I know that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ and is a record of God's dealings with the people who lived on America anciently and that a man will get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts then from any other book.

http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/rlds/Testimonies.html

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:14 pm

Interesting example, metal. I'd say the writer here is talking about America as a land mass rather than a country since the United States as a political entity did not exist at the time.

I'd say you live in a country or state/country but on a patch of land (albeit a pretty big patch in the example you give!) Would it be possible to live on Utah? I doubt it.

Then again, maybe he or she just mistyped. See my point in the parallel thread about keyboard layouts. Without the author here, all we can do is speculate.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:57 pm

I think the writer is using 'on' deliberately to distinguish on the landmass from in the United States.
Reluctantly I have to agree with Larry; correction is not in order.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:21 pm

Would it be possible to live on Utah? I doubt it.

Probalby because Utah, like the United States, is a political entity.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:33 pm

lolwhites wrote:I'd say you live in a country or state/country but on a patch of land

And then Stephen Jones wrote:I think the writer is using 'on' deliberately to distinguish on the landmass from in the United States.

Precisely!

Don't you all think it's wonderful how flexible English can be (as long as there's not a teacher in the room).

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:54 pm

I'll have to admit that I had some of the same misgivings as lolwhites did regarding the website, but had a slightly different interpretation. I don't think the 'righter' is a non-native speaker. I did at first wonder whether he was a poorly educated one, and then tentatively decided he was highly educated, and adopting a "style" to put us on. I'm still not sure about that, but I do think he is a native English speaker. His usage is too clever.

Native speakers usually know what they want to say, and also how to bend the language to say it. This seems to drive we teachers nuts! We are often so quick to jump in there to 'correct' them, sometimes without really understanding what it is they want to say. Perhaps we ought to stand back on occasion, to grasp the context and cotext before we offer our improvements. Even with EFL students if they are sufficiently advanced.

I believe that the examples Metal56 has so cunningly provided show purposeful use of unusual forms for specific results, and that those intentions can be decoded by most native-speaker receivers. But we, as teachers rather than as merely competent readers, have been falling all over ourselves trying to clean up the language.

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:11 am

Interesting example, metal. I'd say the writer here is talking about America as a land mass rather than a country since the United States as a political entity did not exist at the time.

That is the key for me.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:13 am

Would it be possible to live on Utah? I doubt it.

No, Utah is bounded. Officially. There is "in-ness with Utah".