"Chris Croughton" <chris@keristor.net> wrote in message
news:slrne3mo1o.slh.chris@ccserver.keris.net...
> 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:
> >
> > 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".
>
Yes, I agree with both of you, Chris and Miss (;-))
But the idea to use 'within' instead of 'on' came to me
as the solution to include roadsigns... Maybe, I was wrong.
By the way, I've asked an US architect about it.
I'm looking forward to his answer.
Maybe he will find a panacea for that problem.
--
Oscar
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|