|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 4, 2011 21:45:35 GMT
When it arrives it enters the station building. Ergo, it goes into it. (And when it leaves it comes out.) Tone That's irrelevant. Every field of human endeavour has its own terminology, including that of railways. Trains arrive at railway stations; they don't enter them or arrive into them.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 5, 2011 2:34:19 GMT
When it arrives it enters the station building. Ergo, it goes into it. (And when it leaves it comes out.) True, but I don't know that that is how we (or, at least, I) would refer to the train's arrival. Here in Melbourne our interstate terminal (Southern Cross) is also a station on suburban routes and is enclosed as you describe. While I'm no longer a frequent train traveller, I just seem to be more familiar with the idea of an intercity train arriving in Melbourne and a suburban train arriving at the station, neither idea having anything to do with the station structure. If referring to the specific station at which an intercity train were stopping, it seems appropriate to say the train would be arriving at Southern Cross. In other words, what seems correct to me, is that a train arrives in a city, but arrives at a specific station. In the end, Tone, I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to speak of the train's arrival. It's possibly colloquial and/or regional.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 5, 2011 21:57:11 GMT
I am happy that 'arrives' can take 'in' or 'at', but never 'into'.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 6, 2011 19:51:00 GMT
>In the end, Tone, I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to speak of the train's arrival. It's possibly colloquial and/or regional. <
Yes.
Tone
|
|