Voir le sujet précédent :: Voir le sujet suivant |
Auteur |
Message |
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Thursday 14 Sep 06, 22:40 |
|
|
Just a question about prepositions...
My mother and I were writing an e-mail to the family and wondering about which preposition to use. The sentence was:
"we will be arriving in Waterloo at ... pm" (ok, now everyone knows where I'm going on holiday! )
We did have the impression that one should use "at" when talking about a station but "in" sounds better here... Is it because Waterloo station is covered (and therefore makes us want to put "in") or because we want to avoid writing "at" twince in the same sentence?
What do you think and what would you have written? |
|
|
|
|
Le garde-mots
Inscrit le: 22 Dec 2005 Messages: 743 Lieu: Lyon
|
écrit le Friday 15 Sep 06, 0:26 |
|
|
Obviously "at". I don't think "in" is correct is this sentence. |
|
|
|
|
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Friday 15 Sep 06, 10:49 |
|
|
But don't you think
"we will be arriving at Waterloo at 5 pm" sounds strange because of the repetition of "at"?
It obviously should be "at" ("I arrive at the station..." for example), but we somehow find it strange. Could it be because we name the station? We'll look it up.
Any comments from anybody else? |
|
|
|
|
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Friday 22 Sep 06, 1:20 |
|
|
I had a think about it and "googled" various possibilities. My conclusions are: you can say "arriving in/at Waterloo" but only "arriving in Waterloo station" (according to the Eurostar site and other British sites!).
In the sentence "arriving in Waterloo", Waterloo is treated as a place (such as in "arriving in London") and you can use "in" because the word "station" is not mentioned. If you do mention it, you can't say anything else than "at Waterloo station", of course. I'm not sure it's very clear, is it?! |
|
|
|
|
avallon
Inscrit le: 29 Sep 2006 Messages: 16 Lieu: Norwich, UK
|
écrit le Friday 29 Sep 06, 7:07 |
|
|
Hi, most of the time it is "we arrive at 5pm"
using twice "at" in a same sentence is ok in english!
Maybe you have another mothertongue ex. french for which it is better using other words then a repetitive one. I, as a french quebec native, I had difficulties when learning norwegian exactly because of that little particularity. We are formed to used synonym in french contrary to english or norwegian.
Hope it helped you a bit :) |
|
|
|
|
Gaillimh
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2005 Messages: 366 Lieu: Aberdeen (Ecosse)
|
écrit le Saturday 25 Nov 06, 1:00 |
|
|
Other question:
If you want to say you are located in a given place, what motivates your use of in? of at? Has it anything to do with the importance/ size of the place?
I am ... London.
I am ... Stratford upon Avon
I am ... the seaside.
Thank you very much for your help... |
|
|
|
|
José Animateur
Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006 Messages: 10945 Lieu: Lyon
|
écrit le Saturday 25 Nov 06, 12:48 |
|
|
Without much doubt about it, I'd say :
* I am IN London, and IN Stratford upon Avon (location, nothing to do according to me with the size of the place)
* but I am AT the seaside (or BY the sea) |
|
|
|
|
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Saturday 25 Nov 06, 20:17 |
|
|
Sorry I've just read the messages...
Well I am supposed to be bilingual and so English IS my mother tongue!! But I must say that living in France sometimes makes me doubt about some things. The funny thing is that I asked my mother and she had the same doubts about in or at in this particular sentence. And she's 100% British!! I'll ask the rest of the family at Christmas then to settle it! |
|
|
|
|
Gaillimh
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2005 Messages: 366 Lieu: Aberdeen (Ecosse)
|
écrit le Saturday 25 Nov 06, 22:54 |
|
|
alright.
However, I am absolutely certain that in class, our teachers use the preposition at with town/ city names; and most of them are native speakers (I cannot ask them since I am abroad!) |
|
|
|
|
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Monday 27 Nov 06, 19:24 |
|
|
Could it have been something like "he arrived at London airport on Tuesday"? In that case it IS "at" because London is used as an adjective and "at" refers to "airport"... |
|
|
|
|
José Animateur
Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006 Messages: 10945 Lieu: Lyon
|
écrit le Monday 27 Nov 06, 20:48 |
|
|
Sorry, but "I am AT London" is just non-sense to me! |
|
|
|
|
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Tuesday 28 Nov 06, 0:25 |
|
|
Good God, of course it is!! I'm not trying to say anything like that! I'm just saying that in some expressions you can find "at" + "London" but only if it's followed by a noun! |
|
|
|
|
José Animateur
Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006 Messages: 10945 Lieu: Lyon
|
écrit le Tuesday 28 Nov 06, 12:40 |
|
|
No problem Poisson Rouge, I was just referring to Gallimh's list as I thought we were supposed to answer it. |
|
|
|
|
Poisson rouge
Inscrit le: 08 Sep 2006 Messages: 93 Lieu: Hansestadt Hamburg (Allemagne)
|
écrit le Tuesday 28 Nov 06, 16:59 |
|
|
sorry, got carried away! |
|
|
|
|
Brian
Inscrit le: 01 Dec 2006 Messages: 24 Lieu: Beziers
|
écrit le Friday 01 Dec 06, 11:35 |
|
|
Poisson rouge a écrit: | But don't you think
"we will be arriving at Waterloo at 5 pm" sounds strange because of the repetition of "at"?
It obviously should be "at" ("I arrive at the station..." for example), but we somehow find it strange. Could it be because we name the station? We'll look it up.
Any comments from anybody else? |
"What time does your train get in? l'll come to the station to meet you"
"It's supposed to arrive at five fifty five, but last time we didn't get to Waterloo until half past six"
"I'll meet you at the station at six o'clock , under the clock on platform 1. " |
|
|
|
|
|