On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:09:34 GMT, Miss Elaine Eos
<Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <slrne3lho4.2so.chris@ccserver.keris.net>,
> Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net> wrote:
>
>> > My last version is:
>> > eng.: civil engineering objects within roads
>> > ger.: Ingenieurbau Obiekte im Strassen Bereich
>> >
>> > What do you think about it?
>
>> Someone else said that Strassenbau Objekte covers it. I think that
>> English is lacking a word <g>...
>
> But not "...within roads", though -- your English phrase sounds "close
> enough", except that I'd change it to "...objects on roads."
The problem is that the roadsigns aren't "civil engineering", at least
in BrEnglish, and so aren't included. Which is rather annoying.
> Intrestingly enough, "on" doesn't refer to actually *ON* the road (as in
> "standing in the middle of"), but includes along the side of, over, and
> generally everything that "goes with" the road, but isn't the road,
> itself. For example, one might say "there's a nice diner on highway 17"
> -- but it's not *ON* 17, it's just ...uh... DOWN 17 a ways, on the side
> of it :)
The same is true in British English, yes. "In the road" means "on the
part on which one drives", whereas "on the road" means that /and/ the
surroundings (but "there are many cars on the road" -- not in!). I
suspect that it comes from an Anglicisation of the French "en route",
which sounds like "on route". meaning "on the way (to somewhere), so the
diner was "en route" when using road number 17, rather than "on Route
17".
(Note that BrEnglish pronounces "route" in the French way, 'root',
rather than the common USEnglish pronunciation rhyming with 'out'.)
> Hope that's not TOO confusing...
English is confusing -- especially as there are several different
languages all called 'English' <g>.
Chris C
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|