|
|
Post by jno on Nov 17, 2021 4:48:06 GMT
 This discussion has come up recently for me. My daughter's English homework was corrected by an Austrian English teacher recently, changing " in the North Pole" to " on the North Pole". Personally, I don't agree with that. I believe it should really be 'at', 'in' doesn't sound wrong (maybe it's me Welsh side) but 'on' sounds very wrong. So, I asked a fellow British friend of mine, an English teacher for 30+ years from Bournemouth, he said it was 'on' for him. For me, that's not correct. For reference there is a discussion on this very point here: forum.wordreference.com/threads/in-on-at-the-north-pole.3256752/ Anyway, what do you say? Is it IN, AT or ON? Was this right to be corrected by the teacher? Pick TWO! |
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 17, 2021 5:06:20 GMT
If it's in the context of the question you pose, where do polar bears live, then its is referring to an area. Since you wouldn't ever say you're on an area, it would have to be in. Just like for a geographic state, like in the USA, you would never say any of these two: "I am at Texas" or "I am on Texas". The only correct way to say it would be "I am in Texas".
Now, if you were referring to a specific geographic point, then "on" would be correct, however the question you pose in no way indicated the answer would be a specific spot as opposed to an area. Groups of polar bears couldn't possibly live on one single spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 17, 2021 5:58:54 GMT
If it's in the context of the question you pose, where do polar bears live, then its is referring to an area. Since you wouldn't ever say you're on an area, it would have to be in. Just like for a geographic state, like in the USA, you would never say any of these two: "I am at Texas" or "I am on Texas". The only correct way to say it would be "I am in Texas". Now, if you were referring to a specific geographic point, then "on" would be correct, however the question you pose in no way indicated the answer would be a specific spot as opposed to an area. Groups of polar bears couldn't possibly live on one single spot. So if the 'Ramonuck' referred to an animal (as in the homework), just like polar bears, then you're saying you prefer/it has to be "in"? |
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 17, 2021 15:36:14 GMT
If it's in the context of the question you pose, where do polar bears live, then its is referring to an area. Since you wouldn't ever say you're on an area, it would have to be in. Just like for a geographic state, like in the USA, you would never say any of these two: "I am at Texas" or "I am on Texas". The only correct way to say it would be "I am in Texas". Now, if you were referring to a specific geographic point, then "on" would be correct, however the question you pose in no way indicated the answer would be a specific spot as opposed to an area. Groups of polar bears couldn't possibly live on one single spot. So if the 'Ramonuck' referred to an animal (as in the homework), just like polar bears, then you're saying you prefer/it has to be "in"? Yes. It should be "in the North Pole" unless you're saying they live "on" a particular iceberg there. General area vs. a specific spot dictates which preposition to use. I would consider The North Pole an area or region. Maybe the two people you are dealing with consider it a tiny spot there, but in the context of where a person or animal lives, that would be incorrect in itself. They can't live on one tiny spot. |
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 17, 2021 15:47:42 GMT
So if the 'Ramonuck' referred to an animal (as in the homework), just like polar bears, then you're saying you prefer/it has to be "in"? Yes. It should be "in the North Pole" unless you're saying they live "on" a particular iceberg there. General area vs. a specific spot dictates which preposition to use. I would consider The North Pole an area or region. Maybe the two people you are dealing with consider it a tiny spot there, but in the context of where a person or animal lives, that would be incorrect in itself. They can't live on one tiny spot. I concur with this, any other opinions ? |
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 17, 2021 15:58:11 GMT
Tell those two who question you this:
San Francisco's coordinates are 37.7749° N, -122.4194° W. Would they ever say someone lived "on San Francisco"? Are they saying that someone lives on that exact coordinate? Lol. People/animals live in areas, not on a specific coordinate. So, even if they don't think the North Pole is a region or area like we do, and considerate it an exact point, they're still wrong.
They'll probably come back at you with, well people can live "on" the equator. That's when you hit them with the equator is not a single point and encompasses a massive area, so many people can live on that line. Not the same comparison. If they are considering the North Pole as a single point, the equator is a giant elongated line and millions can live on it. It just goes back to the spacial rules of prepositions: area vs. single spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Nov 17, 2021 22:36:18 GMT
It’s AT or ON.
The North Pole is an exact location.
It’s not IN the North Pole.
|
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 18, 2021 1:58:01 GMT
It’s AT or ON. The North Pole is an exact location. It’s not IN the North Pole. It does not appear the sentiment in her little story was that they lived ON the exact coordinates of the North Pole. It's written as a region/area. I think it's a writing assignment, not a scientific paper. Therefore, the writer's sentiment would dictate prepositional use, and it should be interpreted by the reader that she was not referring to the geographical spot. Writing is always how the writer intends it. Her teacher was wrong in assessing it scientifically and not how she actually wrote it, which in its context, would be correct. If she wrote a story of how an arctic expedition made it to the North Pole and stood at that very spot, then yes, AT or ON in a sentence is absolutely correct over IN. However, in her sentence, it is clear to me as the reader that her writing is describing The North Pole as a region, therefore, IN is correct over ON. It's always been commonplace in fiction to describe The North Pole as a region or area. Unless I'm in a science class or reading a scientific journal, in all other writings, I'm interpreting The North Pole as an area. It's definitely been expanded for literary use. At least no one is siding with her teacher yet! 4 votes and none for "ON". |
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 18, 2021 5:19:54 GMT
It’s AT or ON. The North Pole is an exact location. It’s not IN the North Pole. It does not appear the sentiment in her little story was that they lived ON the exact coordinates of the North Pole. It's written as a region/area. I think it's a writing assignment, not a scientific paper. Therefore, the writer's sentiment would dictate prepositional use, and it should be interpreted by the reader that she was not referring to the geographical spot. Writing is always how the writer intends it. Her teacher was wrong in assessing it scientifically and not how she actually wrote it, which in its context, would be correct. If she wrote a story of how an arctic expedition made it to the North Pole and stood at that very spot, then yes, AT or ON in a sentence is absolutely correct over IN. However, in her sentence, it is clear to me as the reader that her writing is describing The North Pole as a region, therefore, IN is correct over ON. It's always been commonplace in fiction to describe The North Pole as a region or area. Unless I'm in a science class or reading a scientific journal, in all other writings, I'm interpreting The North Pole as an area. It's definitely been expanded for literary use. At least no one is siding with her teacher yet! 4 votes and none for "ON". I'm in total agreement with mybodyguard here.  Arch, I did look for 'oop' and 'ont' before I set up this death match, but sadly found nothing other than Jerdeh talking baat being ont set and oop int space.  My money is on (a) at and then (b) in (as a region rather than fixed point) |
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Nov 18, 2021 7:38:05 GMT
It’s AT or ON. The North Pole is an exact location. It’s not IN the North Pole. It does not appear the sentiment in her little story was that they lived ON the exact coordinates of the North Pole. It's written as a region/area. I think it's a writing assignment, not a scientific paper. Therefore, the writer's sentiment would dictate prepositional use, and it should be interpreted by the reader that she was not referring to the geographical spot. Writing is always how the writer intends it. Her teacher was wrong in assessing it scientifically and not how she actually wrote it, which in its context, would be correct. If she wrote a story of how an arctic expedition made it to the North Pole and stood at that very spot, then yes, AT or ON in a sentence is absolutely correct over IN. However, in her sentence, it is clear to me as the reader that her writing is describing The North Pole as a region, therefore, IN is correct over ON. It's always been commonplace in fiction to describe The North Pole as a region or area. Unless I'm in a science class or reading a scientific journal, in all other writings, I'm interpreting The North Pole as an area. It's definitely been expanded for literary use. At least no one is siding with her teacher yet! 4 votes and none for "ON". I hear what you are saying, and yes if it was a fantasy story where The North Pole is no longer a location and rather say a country, then yes, you could write: “John lived in The North Pole, it was much like all the other towns in the world. It was very sunny and warm, and everyone had big grins on their faces all day because they were so happy that they’d abandoned scientific fact for fantasy.” |
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 18, 2021 9:29:10 GMT
Now I'm not saying Google is the authority on the English language, neither does it have the final say on correct usage, BUT it does provide an indicator on frequency of usage. So, let's get Google on this checking a phrase, and its frequency by enclosing the search criterion inside quotes: If I search explicitly for the phrase "live in the North Pole" I get this:  If I search explicitly for the phrase "live on the North Pole" I get this:  And finally, if I search explicitly for the phrase "live at the North Pole" I get this:  Based on the number of results in each case the most common usage is clearly " live in", with "live on" least common. Would this be a suitable 'fact check' here Arch? This goes against my belief that "at" is the top answer, favouring "in" instead. However, "on" still scores the fewest results supporting my belief that "on" is total shite, only perhaps as mybodyguard says, when referring to the exact or a very specific geographic point. |
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 18, 2021 12:20:02 GMT
Maybe it's a US English vs. UK/European usage? It's just usually considered an expanded region in writings I've seen here. And since no other "region" or "spot" on earth is considered in that fashion, of being a single point where something resides, that's probably why google usage shows "in" as the most common form. I don't know this site, but give your daughter's teacher this link: www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/north-pole-animalsFight it, she doesn't deserve the point deduction! The biggest problem with a silly correction like that is in all other usages, ON is completely incorrect. You're teacher is setting her up for future failure when she goes to write her high school and college English papers, and she keeps mistakenly writing, "Elle lives on San Francisco" or "The Alamo is on Texas". |
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 18, 2021 13:52:24 GMT
Maybe it's a US English vs. UK/European usage? It's just usually considered an expanded region in writings I've seen here. And since no other "region" or "spot" on earth is considered in that fashion, of being a single point where something resides, that's probably why google usage shows "in" as the most common form. I don't know this site, but give your daughter's teacher this link: www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/north-pole-animalsFight it, she doesn't deserve the point deduction! The biggest problem with a silly correction like that is in all other usages, ON is completely incorrect. You're teacher is setting her up for future failure when she goes to write her high school and college English papers, and she keeps mistakenly writing, "Elle lives on San Francisco" or "The Alamo is on Texas". This is why 'native' speakers will always trump local non-native English teachers for me. Natives will question and consider a variety of use cases (as you have done by mentioning a possible US/UK difference) but non-natives will tend to go to a single rule case to justify a decision. I agree, 'on' is the worst of the options in the context in which it is used. Likewise, if I'm balanced here, a non-native will always know more rules than a native. Natives work on feel, and most have no idea about the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by gustav on Nov 19, 2021 22:45:06 GMT
It does depend how you define North Pole doesn't it? Mostly I would say 'at' but you can make a case for each word.
|
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 20, 2021 3:12:23 GMT
It does depend how you define North Pole doesn't it? Mostly I would say 'at' but you can make a case for each word. But in the case of the aforementioned homework where an imaginary animal lives in a region? For me, ON is not an option in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Nov 20, 2021 8:27:49 GMT
It does depend how you define North Pole doesn't it? Mostly I would say 'at' but you can make a case for each word. It’s AT. The North Pole is an exact location. It’s not an area and nor does it have boundaries, at least not as far as I’m concerned or for that matter science - though admittedly I haven’t checked it up, so I’ll probably get shot down now .. The North Pole is a singular landmark. It’s like saying John lives in Ayers Rock. No he doesn’t. John lives ON Ayers Rock, John Lives AT Ayers Rock or John lives BY Ayers Rock. Sure John can live IN Alice Springs, the town beside Ayers Rock but he can’t live IN Ayers Rock. Unless he tunnelled out a subterranean lair within the rock. |
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 20, 2021 10:31:22 GMT
It does depend how you define North Pole doesn't it? Mostly I would say 'at' but you can make a case for each word. It’s AT. The North Pole is an exact location. It’s not an area and nor does it have boundaries, at least not as far as I’m concerned or for that matter science - though admittedly I haven’t checked it up, so I’ll probably get shot down now .. The North Pole is a singular landmark. It’s like saying John lives in Ayers Rock. No he doesn’t. John lives ON Ayers Rock, John Lives AT Ayers Rock or John lives BY Ayers Rock. Sure John can live IN Alice Springs, the town beside Ayers Rock but he can’t live IN Ayers Rock. Unless he tunnelled out a subterranean lair within the rock. Arch vs 2,400,000 Google hits ... that's the next death match. |
|
|
|
Post by gustav on Nov 20, 2021 14:09:26 GMT
The North Pole is less of a fixed location than you would think and it is currentrly somewhere distant than where it is supposed to be. But if you accept the idea of the North Pole as a big cold icy and snowy place then you nmight want to say on. In equally so. Although at is usally used for location in terms of geographic description.
But
I live in Belfast
I live in Northern Ireland
I live in Europe
I live on the Wirral
I live on a mountain
I live on an iceberg
I live at the crossroads
I live at the edge of the forest
I live at Whipsnade Zoo
I am not sure what that is meant to say but I suspect in English anything is possible
|
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 21, 2021 2:31:10 GMT
Can anyone climb inside a hurry? I'm in a hurry right now. The English language is a funny thing.
It's all about the written context. It's not a technical journal about where the scientific north pole lies, it's a fictional story that implies something lives in a region. As google search hits clearly point out, the majority of written phrases about the place known as "The North Pole" is written with the preposition "in". It's the most common usage, whether scientifically correct or not.
Common usage trumps practical rules of grammar. Further rules of grammar can also be broken in fictional writing, depending on context and the sentiment of the writer. Her story shouldn't have been corrected unless it confused the reader. And as I pointed out, when she then goes to write about every other place people live "in", she could be confused into writing the wrong preposition in the future, since 99% of the time she will use "in". It was a completely unnecessary correction by her teacher, who was just nitpicking. But at the risk of confusing this young writer in the way I mentioned, it shouldn't have been done.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshirebilly on Nov 22, 2021 9:27:30 GMT
Can anyone climb inside a hurry? I'm in a hurry right now. The English language is a funny thing. It's all about the written context. It's not a technical journal about where the scientific north pole lies, it's a fictional story that implies something lives in a region. As google search hits clearly point out, the majority of written phrases about the place known as "The North Pole" is written with the preposition "in". It's the most common usage, whether scientifically correct or not. Common usage trumps practical rules of grammar. Further rules of grammar can also be broken in fictional writing, depending on context and the sentiment of the writer. Her story shouldn't have been corrected unless it confused the reader. And as I pointed out, when she then goes to write about every other place people live "in", she could be confused into writing the wrong preposition in the future, since 99% of the time she will use "in". It was a completely unnecessary correction by her teacher, who was just nitpicking. But at the risk of confusing this young writer in the way I mentioned, it shouldn't have been done.
I would say "at", but I agree that this is an unusual usage that doesn't translate to other locations. Maybe "at" sounds better for specific point locations (at "47 High Street", "at Buckingham Palace") and "in" sounds better for regions such as towns, counties, countries. I agree that "on" sounds very wrong for all locations - except for very vague locations like "on Earth" or "on the Moon".
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Nov 23, 2021 17:49:58 GMT
Can anyone climb inside a hurry? I'm in a hurry right now. The English language is a funny thing. It's all about the written context. It's not a technical journal about where the scientific north pole lies, it's a fictional story that implies something lives in a region. As google search hits clearly point out, the majority of written phrases about the place known as "The North Pole" is written with the preposition "in". It's the most common usage, whether scientifically correct or not. Common usage trumps practical rules of grammar. Further rules of grammar can also be broken in fictional writing, depending on context and the sentiment of the writer. Her story shouldn't have been corrected unless it confused the reader. And as I pointed out, when she then goes to write about every other place people live "in", she could be confused into writing the wrong preposition in the future, since 99% of the time she will use "in". It was a completely unnecessary correction by her teacher, who was just nitpicking. But at the risk of confusing this young writer in the way I mentioned, it shouldn't have been done. That’s because lots of people are idiots, and just because the world is full of them doesn’t make them right. Likewise jno’s offspring needs her knuckles struck with a cane for stupidity, along with the Austrian teacher, who also needs sacking. It’s AT. The North Pole is an exact location, the fact lots of people are stupid and don’t know this is no concern of the English language. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch Stanton on Nov 23, 2021 17:54:50 GMT
Can anyone climb inside a hurry? I'm in a hurry right now. The English language is a funny thing. It's all about the written context. It's not a technical journal about where the scientific north pole lies, it's a fictional story that implies something lives in a region. As google search hits clearly point out, the majority of written phrases about the place known as "The North Pole" is written with the preposition "in". It's the most common usage, whether scientifically correct or not. Common usage trumps practical rules of grammar. Further rules of grammar can also be broken in fictional writing, depending on context and the sentiment of the writer. Her story shouldn't have been corrected unless it confused the reader. And as I pointed out, when she then goes to write about every other place people live "in", she could be confused into writing the wrong preposition in the future, since 99% of the time she will use "in". It was a completely unnecessary correction by her teacher, who was just nitpicking. But at the risk of confusing this young writer in the way I mentioned, it shouldn't have been done.
I would say "at", but I agree that this is an unusual usage that doesn't translate to other locations. Maybe "at" sounds better for specific point locations (at "47 High Street", "at Buckingham Palace") and "in" sounds better for regions such as towns, counties, countries. I agree that "on" sounds very wrong for all locations - except for very vague locations like "on Earth" or "on the Moon".
We all live in a yellow submarine? My chums and I live on a house boat? …. Err anyway enough of that …. I agree with Yorkshire Billy. |
|
|
|
Post by jno on Nov 23, 2021 18:53:00 GMT
Ran this past me in-laws IN the South West, they all said "in". This was without any prompting. Also said that "at" would be OK. They agreed that "on" was wrong other than just for the point itself, as mybodyguard mentions above.
|
|
|
|
Post by mybodyguard on Nov 24, 2021 4:40:32 GMT
Can anyone climb inside a hurry? I'm in a hurry right now. The English language is a funny thing. It's all about the written context. It's not a technical journal about where the scientific north pole lies, it's a fictional story that implies something lives in a region. As google search hits clearly point out, the majority of written phrases about the place known as "The North Pole" is written with the preposition "in". It's the most common usage, whether scientifically correct or not. Common usage trumps practical rules of grammar. Further rules of grammar can also be broken in fictional writing, depending on context and the sentiment of the writer. Her story shouldn't have been corrected unless it confused the reader. And as I pointed out, when she then goes to write about every other place people live "in", she could be confused into writing the wrong preposition in the future, since 99% of the time she will use "in". It was a completely unnecessary correction by her teacher, who was just nitpicking. But at the risk of confusing this young writer in the way I mentioned, it shouldn't have been done. That’s because lots of people are idiots, and just because the world is full of them doesn’t make them right. Likewise jno’s offspring needs her knuckles struck with a cane for stupidity, along with the Austrian teacher, who also needs sacking. It’s AT. The North Pole is an exact location, the fact lots of people are stupid and don’t know this is no concern of the English language. The ultimate answer is, while you can use AT and be scientifically correct, IN is also correct here. She wrote it as an area and most people perceive it as such. Nothing to do with stupidity, as common usage is acceptable in lieu of specific (or scientific) rules of grammar. Only her teacher is stupid. And google never lies. Its searches return the end all be all answers to human's most puzzling questions. That along with wikipedia, and quora, and facebook, and politifact. |
|
