dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (04/24/89)
In English, the spatial relation between a point and a geographic polygon is "usually" expressed with the preposition "in". This is consistent with the idea that the polygonal region is conceived of as a CONTAINER. However, for some geographic polygons, English uses "on", which implies a PLATFORM image-schema. So far, I cannot come up with any set of characteristics of the polygons that would indicate whether "in" or "on" is used. Or, alternatively, I cannot come up with metaphors that would attach each example to a CONTAINER or PLATFORM prototype to form a radial category structure (a la Lakoff). I posted this query a couple of months ago, and did not receive anything that I consider to be "the answer". So, once again, if anyone reading this knows the answer, or has a plausible explanation, please respond via email or posting. David M. Mark, Geography, SUNY at Buffalo dmark@cs.buffalo.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ Some examples: "Where does George live?" GROUP A: "IN", the CONTAINER image-schema He lives in Mexico He lives in Wyoming He lives in Manitoba He lives in Whatcom County He lives in Clarence, New York He lives in Seattle He lives in Central Park He lives in Yellowstone Park He lives in Los Padres National Forest He lives in the parking lot He lives in his back yard He lives in the new subdivision He lives in my neighborhood He lives in the Mission school district He lives in a cornfield He lives in Fred's pasture He lives in a meadow GROUP B: "ON", the PLATFORM image-schema He lives on the Fort Lewis military base He lives on the Stanford University campus He lives on an Indian reservation He lives on parcel "B" He lives on Quilchena golf course He lives on the highschool football field He lives on a tennis court He lives on his front lawn He lives on Henry's farm He lives on Frank's ranch He lives on Peter's land He lives on his own property
krista@ihlpy.ATT.COM (Anderson) (04/25/89)
<> In article <5434@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > > GROUP A: "IN", the CONTAINER image-schema > > He lives in Mexico > He lives in Wyoming > He lives in Manitoba > He lives in Whatcom County > He lives in Clarence, New York > He lives in Seattle > He lives in Central Park > He lives in Yellowstone Park > He lives in Los Padres National Forest > He lives in the parking lot > He lives in his back yard > He lives in the new subdivision > He lives in my neighborhood > He lives in the Mission school district > He lives in a cornfield > He lives in Fred's pasture > He lives in a meadow > > GROUP B: "ON", the PLATFORM image-schema > > He lives on the Fort Lewis military base > He lives on the Stanford University campus > He lives on an Indian reservation > He lives on parcel "B" > He lives on Quilchena golf course > He lives on the highschool football field > He lives on a tennis court > He lives on his front lawn > He lives on Henry's farm > He lives on Frank's ranch > He lives on Peter's land > He lives on his own property Well, this isn't a linguistic answer, but I have an intuitive feeling that it's idiomatic whether a geographical noun takes "in" or "on". One thing I do note is that the "in" list nouns seem to have more abstract borders. The concept of "Mexico" is abstract as are all political entities. But the military base or campus has a more concrete sense of separateness from its surroundings. The political border seems more arbitrary or invisible, something you couldn't imagine in its entirety all at once.* But "parking lot" is about as concrete as you can get, yet it takes "in". :-) In learning other languages, it's often necessary to memorize the idiomatic choice of prepositions. On the other hand, I think there's also a vague classification which permits one to "get a feeling" for the preposition to be used. In your example, the use of "in" with political entities is a vague rule. And the use of "on" with nouns that elicit an image of the ground is a vague rule. But words like "parking lot", "cornfield" and "meadow" don't fit the "on" rule and words like "base", "campus" and "reservation" don't fit the "in" rule. Perhaps they're just exceptions, or perhaps there are more rules. For instance, forests, cornfields, pastures and meadows all elicit an image of tall things growing. (A pasture usually has trees and a meadow has weeds.) Even the parking lot has cars among which we feel slightly hidden. So there's the feeling of being "within" or "in" the forests and fields. And in the backyard it's very cozy and private as if we're hiding in our private little world. (in the world - abstract; on the earth - physical) The golf course usually has trees, but is also thought of as flat and fairly clear, whereas the forest is not. The "in" nouns are more three-dimensional. As for "base" and "reservation", although they are political entities in a sense, there's a feeling that they are more physically bounded by lines drawn on the earth. I know it's not logical; it is based on feeling, so that's why it's vague and hard to analyze. Also note that some nouns can take either preposition, perhaps depending on context or the preceding verb. "My car is in the parking lot." "The ball bounced on the parking lot." "The horse is in the field." "The ball bounced on the field." In the "on" phrases, the bottom plane of the three-dimensional space was emphasized due to the context. I have an anecdote based on the choice of prefixes that is similarly based on vague feeling rules rather than logical order. When our company began issuing badges for us to wear, there was a ceremonious ritual about taking off the badges to go to lunch. A new word was needed, so, in typical American fashion, so we made one up: "de-badge". (Of course "re-badge" was used while reentering the building.) But there was one exception. A friend for whom English was a second language said "un-badge". It sounded wrong. There's some amorphous rule, some fuzzy logic that makes "de-badge" sound right and "un-badge" sound wrong. It may be a vague semantic rule or it might be simple euphony; "un-badge" is more effort to pronounce. Well, the rules exist, but are idiomatic because they're vague and based on spatial image or emotional feeling, rather than on things that rules are usually based on such as number, ambiguity prevention, logical order. Plus the rules can be in conflict, whereas that isn't true for most grammatical rules. It probably depends on cultural points of view what's important in setting up vague rules, or the rules may have derived from anecdotal history or a joke that an ancestor once made that caught on and was generalized. *(The Navajo language makes a vague distinction in locational and directional words between places that are within eyesight or imagination and places that are too far to see or too big to imagine.) -- Krista A.
hirtle@cisunx.UUCP (Steve Hirtle) (04/26/89)
In article <5434@cs.Buffalo.EDU> dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: >In English, the spatial relation between a point and a geographic polygon is >"usually" expressed with the preposition "in". This is consistent with the >idea that the polygonal region is conceived of as a CONTAINER. However, for >some geographic polygons, English uses "on", which implies a PLATFORM >image-schema. So far, I cannot come up with any set of characteristics >of the polygons that would indicate whether "in" or "on" is used. Michel Grimaud had an article in _Geolinguistics_ recently comparing use of prepositions in French, British English, and American English and he made some interesting observations and noted systematic differences. For example, in American English, "in" is used for larger political divisions, as "in Ireland," whereas "on" is used for smaller units, as "on Staten Island." There is also a consistency in that we say "in a cornfield" and "walking through a cornfield", but "on a battlefield" and "walking across a battlefield." As for the differences, he described how the three languages look at street names relating it to the issue of containment. In all three languages we talk of "in the alley," as alleys are considered containers, and "on the boulevard," as boulevards are considered surfaces. But the languages differ on whether "in" or "on" is used with intermediate cases. For example, Americans say "the man on the street" or "on Wall Street," but in England "the man in the street" is considered proper. Metaphorical uses are also discussed. Grimaud notes that "The house is on the ocean" is only proper in English, not in French. Please note that this is my summarization of Grimaud's work; I do not know that he would agree with my interpretations. I know I am not answering your query, but I wonder if you might consider breaking the problem into distinct problems. That is, different "rules" (in a given language) might exist for different classes of terms, be it political boundaries, metaphorical uses, or something as small as roadway terms. I did not see your earlier postings or the replies, so if you could expand on the main points, or email the earlier entries, I would be interested. Stephen C. Hirtle Department of Information Science University of Pittsburgh UUCP: {pitt, decvax}!idis!sch INTERNET: hirtle@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu INTERNET: sch@idis.lis.pittsburgh.edu BITNET: HIRTLE@PITTVMS
krista@ihlpy.ATT.COM (Anderson) (04/26/89)
<> In article <5434@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > GROUP A: "IN", the CONTAINER image-schema > > He lives in Mexico > He lives in Wyoming > He lives in Manitoba > He lives in Whatcom County > He lives in Clarence, New York > He lives in Seattle > He lives in Central Park > He lives in Yellowstone Park > He lives in Los Padres National Forest > He lives in the parking lot > He lives in his back yard > He lives in the new subdivision > He lives in my neighborhood > He lives in the Mission school district > He lives in a cornfield > He lives in Fred's pasture > He lives in a meadow > > GROUP B: "ON", the PLATFORM image-schema > > He lives on the Fort Lewis military base > He lives on the Stanford University campus > He lives on an Indian reservation > He lives on parcel "B" > He lives on Quilchena golf course > He lives on the highschool football field > He lives on a tennis court > He lives on his front lawn > He lives on Henry's farm > He lives on Frank's ranch > He lives on Peter's land > He lives on his own property Well, this isn't a linguistic answer, but I have an intuitive feeling that it's idiomatic whether a geographical noun takes "in" or "on". One thing I do note is that the "in" list nouns seem to have more abstract borders. The concept of "Mexico" is abstract as are all political entities. But the military base or campus has a more concrete sense of separateness from its surroundings. The political border seems more arbitrary or invisible, something you couldn't imagine in its entirety all at once.* But "parking lot" is about as concrete as you can get, yet it takes "in". In learning other languages, it's often necessary to memorize the idiomatic choice of prepositions. On the other hand, I think there's also a vague classification which permits one to "get a feeling" for the preposition to be used. In your example, the use of "in" with political entities is a vague rule. And the use of "on" with nouns that elicit an image of the ground is a vague rule. But words like "parking lot", "cornfield" and "meadow" don't fit the "on" rule and words like "base", "campus" and "reservation" don't fit the "in" rule. Perhaps they're just exceptions, or perhaps there are more rules. For instance, forests, cornfields, pastures and meadows all elicit an image of tall things growing. (A pasture usually has trees and a meadow has weeds.) Even the parking lot has cars among which we feel slightly hidden. So there's the feeling of being "within" or "in" the forests and fields. And in the backyard it's very cozy and private as if we're hiding in our private little world. (in the world - abstract; on the earth - physical) The golf course usually has trees, but is also thought of as flat and fairly clear, whereas the forest is not. The "in" nouns are more three-dimensional. As for "base" and "reservation", although they are political entities in a sense, there's a feeling that they are more physically bounded by lines drawn on the earth. I know it's not logical; it is based on feeling, so that's why it's vague and hard to analyze. Also note that some nouns can take either preposition, perhaps depending on context or the preceding verb. "My car is in the parking lot." "The ball bounced on the parking lot." "The horse is in the field." "The ball bounced on the field." In the "on" phrases, the bottom plane of the three-dimensional space was emphasized due to the context. I have an anecdote based on the choice of prefixes that is similarly based on vague feeling rules rather than logical order. When our company began issuing badges for us to wear, there was a ceremonious ritual about taking off the badges to go to lunch. A new word was needed, so, in typical American fashion, so we made one up: "de-badge". (Of course "re-badge" was used while reentering the building.) But there was one exception. A friend for whom English was a second language said "un-badge". It sounded wrong. There's some amorphous rule, some fuzzy logic that makes "de-badge" sound right and "un-badge" sound wrong. It may be a vague semantic rule or it might be simple euphony; "un-badge" is more effort to pronounce. Well, the rules exist, but are idiomatic because they're vague and based on spatial image or emotional feeling, rather than on things that rules are usually based on such as number, ambiguity prevention, logical order. Plus the rules can be in conflict, whereas that isn't true for most grammatical rules. It probably depends on cultural points of view what's important in setting up vague rules, or the rules may have derived from anecdotal history or a joke that an ancestor once made that caught on and was generalized. *(The Navajo language makes a vague distinction in locational and directional words between places that are within eyesight or imagination and places that are too far to see or too big to imagine.) -- Krista A.
jmast@cisunx.UUCP (John M Allen) (04/27/89)
In article <12591@ihlpy.ATT.COM> krista@ihlpy.ATT.COM (Anderson) writes: >When our company began issuing badges for us to wear, there was a >ceremonious ritual about taking off the badges to go to lunch. A >new word was needed, so, in typical American fashion, so we made one >up: "de-badge". (Of course "re-badge" was used while reentering the >building.) > > But there was one exception. A friend for whom English was a >second language said "un-badge". It sounded wrong. There's some >amorphous rule, some fuzzy logic that makes "de-badge" sound right >and "un-badge" sound wrong. It may be a vague semantic rule or it >might be simple euphony; "un-badge" is more effort to pronounce. The answer for this is very simple. The prefix `un-' is ambiguous between to forms. The first one attaches to adjectives and produces an adjective with the meaning "not X" (e.g. unclear, unavoidable). The second one attaches to verbs and produces a verb with the meaning "to undo X" (e.g. unzip, undress). On the other hand `de-' appears to attach to nouns and produces a verb with the meaning "to remove X" (e.g. defrock). `Badge' is obviously a noun and not a verb or an adjective, so the only appropriate prefix is `de-'. >Krista A. \ | | John Allen \ \ || allen@mercutio.lcl.cmu.edu / \ formerly allen@mercurio.lcl.cmu.edu jmast@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu "The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof." -Richard Bach, _Illusions_
treese@crltrx.crl.dec.com (Win Treese) (04/27/89)
In article <17765@cisunx.UUCP> hirtle@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Stephen Hirtle) writes: >Michel Grimaud had an article in _Geolinguistics_ recently comparing >use of prepositions in French, British English, and American English >and he made some interesting observations and noted systematic >differences. For example, in American English, "in" is used >for larger political divisions, as "in Ireland," whereas "on" is used >for smaller units, as "on Staten Island." There is also a consistency >in that we say "in a cornfield" and "walking through a cornfield", >but "on a battlefield" and "walking across a battlefield." Hmm. I don't think that the size is the critical issue in the usage for political divisions. In America, at least, one hears "in America", "in Massachusetts", "in Cambridge", and "in Kendall Square". The use of "on" for the Staten Island example seems to me to be related more to the nature of the island. But then, we do say "in Manhattan", which is very similar to Staten Island as a political subdivision and as an island. >As for the differences, he described how the three languages look >at street names relating it to the issue of containment. In all three >languages we talk of "in the alley," as alleys are considered containers, >and "on the boulevard," as boulevards are considered surfaces. But the >languages differ on whether "in" or "on" is used with intermediate >cases. For example, Americans say "the man on the street" or "on >Wall Street," but in England "the man in the street" is considered >proper. Metaphorical uses are also discussed. Grimaud notes that >"The house is on the ocean" is only proper in English, not in French. In American English, one also says, "he lives on Smith Street". French generally uses "he lives in the Rue Morgue". I do seem to recall that "man in the street" is fairly common the US, though -- "man-in-the-street interviews" are probably interchangeable with "on". This also brings to mind another question. In my experience, people from New York City (and environs -- great word, that) say "stand on line". Everyone else from America talks about standing "in line". (Britain avoids this problem, of course, by "queueing up".) And, of course, George Carlin drew an important distinction: "Would you get on the plane now, sir?" "On the plane?! I'm getting *in* the plane, where the pilot is. You can get *on* the plane." Win Treese Cambridge Research Lab treese@crl.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp.
nol2105@dsacg2.UUCP (Robert E. Zabloudil) (04/27/89)
In article <12598@ihlpy.ATT.COM> krista@ihlpy.ATT.COM (Anderson) writes: ><> >In article <5434@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: >> GROUP A: "IN", the CONTAINER image-schema >> >> GROUP B: "ON", the PLATFORM image-schema >> >When our company began issuing badges for us to wear, there was a >ceremonious ritual about taking off the badges to go to lunch. A >new word was needed, so, in typical American fashion, so we made one >up: "de-badge". (Of course "re-badge" was used while reentering the >building.) > > But there was one exception. A friend for whom English was a >second language said "un-badge". It sounded wrong. There's some >amorphous rule, some fuzzy logic that makes "de-badge" sound right Having taken Latin in high school, I would say it's not that fuzzy. We use "un" as a quite negative prefix, so un-badging might be something you do when terminating employment: your badge would then be destroyed and cease to exist. Latin "de" means away from or down when prefixing (cf. descend, decline, defend, defy, decide, derail, delimit, deposit, deposition, etc.), although some of the meanings have become rather figurative over the years. So, as a rank amateur linguist, I would accept de-badge in the sense of putting down your badge, and re- means again, so you come back and "badge up again". We have files which can be dedicated to teleprocessing or batch, and we talk about dequeuing and requeuing them, which is parallel to your new word. Of course, there are those who shudder at combining a Latin prefix with a non-Latin root, but maybe they won't call you on this one. Bob Zabloudil Opinions are my own...who else could come up with opinions like these!?
rkpc@mergvax (Rob Kedoin) (04/27/89)
I was wondering if anyone has had the experience with the phrases "in line"
vs "on line".
I have found that when someone in New York talks about waiting on line, they
use the phrase "on line" whereas people from Pennslyvania and Ohio tend to
find the phrase "on line" ridiculous and will object and tell you that the
proper phrase is "in line".
Has anyone else noticed this in other areas of the country ?
-Rob Kedoin
UUCP: {decvax, motown, cpmain, icus}!mergvax!rkpc
ARPA: rkpc%mergvax.UUCP@decvax.dec.com
USnail-mail: Linotype Company - R&D 425 Oser Avenue Hauppauge, NY 11788
VOICE: (516) 434 - 2729hirtle@cisunx.UUCP (Steve Hirtle) (04/28/89)
In article <136@crltrx.crl.dec.com> treese@crl.dec.com (Win Treese) writes: >In article <17765@cisunx.UUCP> hirtle@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Stephen Hirtle) writes: >>... in American English, "in" is used >>for larger political divisions, as "in Ireland," whereas "on" is used >>for smaller units, as "on Staten Island." > >Hmm. I don't think that the size is the critical issue in the usage for >political divisions. In America, at least, one hears "in America", >"in Massachusetts", "in Cambridge", and "in Kendall Square". The use of >"on" for the Staten Island example seems to me to be related more to >the nature of the island. But then, we do say "in Manhattan", which >is very similar to Staten Island as a political subdivision and as an >island. You are correct. The key fact that I left off was that all small *islands* or similar units use "on," "on Staten Island", "on Nantucket", but larger units (even though they are islands or land masses) use "in", "in Ireland", "in Cuba". Both Cuba and Nantucket are islands, yet suggest different prepositions. Note that "on" is used with units that are isolated or self-contained, even if they are not islands, provided that they are relatively small. For example, we say "on Cape Cod", but "in North America." It is also true that "in Manhattan" is used suggesting that Manhattan is seen as a larger political unit rather than a small island. And your point is well taken that small political units (e.g., Kendall Square) that are not isolated (unlike Cape Cod) would use "in". Stephen C. Hirtle Interdisciplinary Department of Information Science University of Pittsburgh UUCP: {pitt, decvax}!idis!sch INTERNET: sch@idis.lis.pittsburgh.edu INTERNET: hirtle@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu BITNET: HIRTLE@PITTVMS
andrea@hp-sdd.hp.com (Andrea K. Frankel) (04/29/89)
In article <136@crltrx.crl.dec.com> treese@crl.dec.com (Win Treese) writes: >And, of course, George Carlin drew an important distinction: > > "Would you get on the plane now, sir?" > "On the plane?! I'm getting *in* the plane, where the pilot is. > You can get *on* the plane." And in the same monologue, he pokes fun at "deplaned": "I have never debussed, I have never deboated, but I have deplaned." Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) CSNET : andrea%hp-sdd@hplabs.csnet USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (04/29/89)
In article <5913@mergvax> rkpc@mergvax (Rob Kedoin) writes: >I was wondering if anyone has had the experience with the phrases "in line" >vs "on line". > >I have found that when someone in New York talks about waiting on line, they >use the phrase "on line" whereas people from Pennslyvania and Ohio tend to >find the phrase "on line" ridiculous and will object and tell you that the >proper phrase is "in line". > Last time I posted my in/on question, the discussion rapidly turned to this "in line" / "on line" point. "Standing on line" to wait for, say tickets or service, seems to be almost strictly a New York City usage. It does not seem to extend even to Albany (NY). Postings last time did not establish: a) how far out Long Island the usage extends; b) whether it extends into Connecticut, or beyond northeastward, and how far; c) whether it extends into New Jersey, or beyond southward, and how far. I wonder if it a too-litteral translation for some common-in-NYC non-English language, perhaps Yiddish or Italian (?). No-one last time presented an "explanation", even hand-waving, for the usage. David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (04/30/89)
In article <17842@cisunx.UUCP> hirtle@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Stephen Hirtle) writes: >In article <136@crltrx.crl.dec.com> treese@crl.dec.com (Win Treese) writes: >>In article <17765@cisunx.UUCP> hirtle@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Stephen Hirtle) writes: >>>... in American English, "in" is used >>>for larger political divisions, as "in Ireland," whereas "on" is used >>>for smaller units, as "on Staten Island." >> >>Hmm. I don't think that the size is the critical issue in the usage for >>political divisions. ... ... The use of >>"on" for the Staten Island example seems to me to be related more to >>the nature of the island. But then, we do say "in Manhattan", which >>is very similar to Staten Island as a political subdivision and as an >>island. But does not have "Island" in it's name! [see below] > >You are correct. The key fact that I left off was that all small >*islands* or similar units use "on," "on Staten Island", "on Nantucket", >but larger units (even though they are islands or land masses) use "in", >"in Ireland", "in Cuba". Both Cuba and Nantucket are islands, yet >suggest different prepositions. Note that "on" is used with units >that are isolated or self-contained, even if they are not islands, >provided that they are relatively small. For example, we say "on Cape >Cod", but "in North America." It is also true that "in Manhattan" >is used suggesting that Manhattan is seen as a larger political unit >rather than a small island. And your point is well taken that >small political units (e.g., Kendall Square) that are not isolated >(unlike Cape Cod) would use "in". I think that size per se has almost nothing to do with this. In fact, I think it is a case of overlapping image-schemas, again. Conceptualizing something as <<an island>> more-or-less forces one to select the <PLATFORM> image-schema, and use the preposition "on". If the word "island" appears in the name, this almost requires the speaker to use the platform I-S, and say "on". "Who lived on Manhattan Island before the Europeans came?" When there is a political unit, not having "Island" in its proper name, which happens to be in 1:1 correspondence with a physical island, then either "in" or "on" might be used, to force a particular schema, or to indicate whether we are talking about a physical island or a country. "Did anyone live on Cuba before 1492?" sounds a little odd, but the same sentence with "in" would be even more strange, since Cuba-the-country did not exist then. If I say: "My friend Ron lives in Hawaii" he hight live in Honolulu, or anywhere else in the state, but if I say: "My friend Ron lives on Hawaii", then if you know the geography, you know that this means "the Big Island", where Hilo and Kona are. So this seems to be a good case of what Len Talmy calls "schema-juggling" where in this case we can at times lower ambiguity by forcing one schema or the other. Size comes in very indirectly through the observation that small islands almost always have "Island" as part of their proper names, whereas larger islands often do not. David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/06/89)
In article <17765@cisunx.UUCP>, hirtle@cisunx.UUCP (Steve Hirtle) writes: > Michel Grimaud had an article in _Geolinguistics_ recently comparing > use of prepositions in French, British English, and American English > and he made some interesting observations and noted systematic > differences. For example, in American English, "in" is used > for larger political divisions, as "in Ireland," whereas "on" is used > for smaller units, as "on Staten Island." There is also a consistency > in that we say "in a cornfield" and "walking through a cornfield", > but "on a battlefield" and "walking across a battlefield." > > As for the differences, he described how the three languages look > at street names relating it to the issue of containment. In all three > languages we talk of "in the alley," as alleys are considered containers, > and "on the boulevard," as boulevards are considered surfaces. But the > languages differ on whether "in" or "on" is used with intermediate > cases. For example, Americans say "the man on the street" or "on > Wall Street," but in England "the man in the street" is considered > proper. Metaphorical uses are also discussed. Grimaud notes that > "The house is on the ocean" is only proper in English, not in French. Well, I don't know about speakers of other dialects of English, but in mine (American West Coast, basically), there are differences in meaning between "in" and "on". For example, I could say: My car is parked in the street. My house is on the next street. I.e., "in" means physically located inside the boundaries of the street; "on" means adjacent to the boundaries. The metaphor is a container with boundaries. A different set of metaphors uses "in" for political/legal entities with boundaries, but "on" for areas with surfaces. Thus, a cornfield is a container within which you grow a crop, so you'd be "in" a cornfield; a battlefield is a surface "on" which actions take place. Ireland is primarily a political entity, so "in" is appropriate; when dealing with some aspects of its tangled history, it makes more sense (to me) to talk of things happening "on" (the island of) Ireland. People can live "on" (the island of) Manhattan or "in" (the borough of) Manhattan. And so on. Both "the man in the street" and "the man on the street" sound OK to me, but the former gives me a bit of an uncomfortable feeling, which comes from thinking that he'd be safer if he'd join the latter on the sidewalk. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) [Any errors in the above are due to failures in the logic of the keyboard, not in the fingers that did the typing.]