|
Post by Tone on Jul 19, 2008 20:26:03 GMT
Please observe the following sentences. ( ) "He spoke to me in October on the 13th at the factory in my office." "He spoke to me on October the 13th in the factory." "He spoke to me in October, the 13th, in my office at the factory." The "in"s and "on"s, and the "in"s and "at"s, are selected there by some "rule". But what is that "rule"? Tone
|
|
|
Post by suvvern on Jul 20, 2008 1:07:37 GMT
You've got me stumped
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jul 20, 2008 4:28:45 GMT
The "in"s and "on"s, and the "in"s and "at"s, are selected there by some "rule". Are they? The only 'rule' I can see having any bearing here is the meaning each of the in's and on's and at's is understood to have.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 20, 2008 5:07:38 GMT
I think Tone has an interesting point, though. I am just not clear on the answers. Could this be one of those areas where the rule just is? So: - years and months take 'in': "we last spoke in 1963"; "he spoke to me in October".
- specific dates take 'on': "he spoke to me on 13 October"; "we ate together on Xmas Day"
- specific times take 'at': "I called at midday".
The locative version is more difficult but may be down to specificity. Thus: - Non-specific takes 'at': "he spoke to me at work"; "we spoke at the factory".
- specific takes 'in': "we spoke in my office at the factory"; or even, "we spoke in the factory".
In the last example, we are using the factory as the specific location, not the non-specific. I am not sure whether this all amounts to a 'rule' or just a descritpion of what we say. Or maybe they are the same here?
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 20, 2008 6:05:21 GMT
I think Tone has an interesting point, though. I am just not clear on the answers. Could this be one of those areas where the rule just is? So: - years and months take 'in': "we last spoke in 1963"; "he spoke to me in October".
- specific dates take 'on': "he spoke to me on 13 October"; "we ate together on Xmas Day"
- specific times take 'at': "I called at midday".
The locative version is more difficult but may be down to specificity. Thus: - Non-specific takes 'at': "he spoke to me at work"; "we spoke at the factory".
- specific takes 'in': "we spoke in my office at the factory"; or even, "we spoke in the factory".
In the last example, we are using the factory as the specific location, not the non-specific. I am not sure whether this all amounts to a 'rule' or just a descritpion of what we say. Or maybe they are the same here? - locations also take 'in': "we met in Toronto"; "a nice hotel in London".
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jul 20, 2008 7:30:34 GMT
The "in"s and "on"s, and the "in"s and "at"s, are selected there by some "rule". Are they? The only 'rule' I can see having any bearing here is the meaning each of the in's and on's and at's is understood to have. Exactly so. In each case the choice of preposition is dictated by the meaning. In some cases this is virtually prescribed by the context, in others it depends on what message we wish to convey. Thus, we can meet 'in', 'at', or 'on' a ship, depending on circumstance; but only 'on' a certain date; and only 'at' a certain time. I don't see the need for any rule. (Tone likes to insist on " in arrears")
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on Jul 20, 2008 9:10:32 GMT
The sort of implicit understanding of how and when these are used is surely why it is so difficult for a non-native speaker to to learn a language. I'm sure such subtleties occur in all(?) other languages. I'm sure I've heard even apparently completely bi-lingual speakers (Welsh/English) use slightly odd constructions using prepositions, and my Finnish friend whose accent is such that one would have no idea she isn't English is 'let down' sometimes by these subtleties of the language. If there actually is a rule (which I doubt) it is so complicated and so full of caveats and exceptions that it would be more of a guideline (in my view).
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jul 20, 2008 10:18:35 GMT
The sort of implicit understanding of how ans when these are used is surely why it is so difficult for a non-native speaker to to learn a language. I'm sure such subtleties occur in all(?) other languages. I'm sure I've heard even apparently completely bi-lingual speakers (Welsh/English) use slightly odd constructions using prepositions, and my Finnish friend whose accent is such that one would have no idea she isn't English is 'let down' sometimes by these subtleties of the language. If there actually is a rule (which I doubt) it is so complicated and so full of caveats and exceptions that it would be more of a guideline (in my view). The members of my French class are forever being corrected by our tutor for using à, dans, sur and en in the wrong places.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 20, 2008 12:14:42 GMT
I think we'd all agree that in carries an implication of being surrounded by something, on an implication of being above something, and at an implication of being next to something.
So which one we use for things like dates and places depends rather on our mental image, which is no doubt culturally influenced (which is why its a hard one for native speakers).
- in October -- mental image of being surrounded by the month - on the 13th -- mental image of marking the date on a paper calendar - at the factory -- mental image of meeting next to the factory - in the factory -- mental image of meeting inside the factory
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on Jul 20, 2008 12:38:52 GMT
So which one we use for things like dates and places depends rather on our mental image, which is no doubt culturally influenced (which is why its a hard one for native speakers). - in October -- mental image of being surrounded by the month - on the 13th -- mental image of marking the date on a paper calendar - at the factory -- mental image of meeting next to the factory - in the factory -- mental image of meeting inside the factory I don't think I've ever (consciously, at least) had a mental image of where I am or what I'm doing in relation to choosing which preposition to use. Certainly, for the 'we spoke at the factory' example, I'd use that for speaking to someone actually inside the factory rather than outside.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 20, 2008 14:20:55 GMT
I think Tone has an interesting point, though. I am just not clear on the answers. Could this be one of those areas where the rule just is? So: - years and months take 'in': "we last spoke in 1963"; "he spoke to me in October".
- specific dates take 'on': "he spoke to me on 13 October"; "we ate together on Xmas Day"
- specific times take 'at': "I called at midday".
The locative version is more difficult but may be down to specificity. Thus: - Non-specific takes 'at': "he spoke to me at work"; "we spoke at the factory".
- specific takes 'in': "we spoke in my office at the factory"; or even, "we spoke in the factory".
In the last example, we are using the factory as the specific location, not the non-specific. I am not sure whether this all amounts to a 'rule' or just a descritpion of what we say. Or maybe they are the same here? - locations also take 'in': "we met in Toronto"; "a nice hotel in London".
Which was the second bullet point of my locative examples, TfS. I was suggesting that 'in' is used to convey some greater specificity than 'at'.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 20, 2008 15:30:48 GMT
which is why its a hard one for native speakers Oops! I don't think I've ever (consciously, at least) had a mental image of where I am or what I'm doing in relation to choosing which preposition to use. No, I think it's probably unconscious. Was it Dave M here who mentioned that Chinese people feel their essence is in their heart, and we feel ours is in our head? It's that sort of subconscious thing: it happens also with bring (move towards me) and take (move away from me). Some languages have a third word for "move away from you". Some sort of deep mental model informs language, surely?
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 20, 2008 15:51:58 GMT
Which was the second bullet point of my locative examples, TfS. I was suggesting that 'in' is used to convey some greater specificity than 'at'. Yes, of course. Brain not in gear before fingers start to type. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 20, 2008 15:58:31 GMT
Some sort of deep mental model informs language, surely? That conjures up strange ideas in Swedish since we say, for example: - Han sitter i telefon just nu: He's sitting in the telephone right now.
- Hon är på teater ikväll: She's on the theatre this evening.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 20, 2008 17:47:27 GMT
That's sort of my point, TfS. I suspect there's a different mental model going on; unfortunately, as I know no Swedish, I have no idea what it might be!
|
|