Comments on: Why in and not on?… http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/ An Aussie girl living in Tokyo with her Japanese boyfriend trying to make sense of her crazy yet funny Japanese life... Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:33:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Beckie Whitcomb http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-13718 Beckie Whitcomb Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:35:03 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-13718 Yeah- Told my students that if you are able to physically stand up, then you are 'on' , if you can't physically stand up, you are 'in'. This is good because it covers the whole 'on' a bicycle dilemma too. Yeah- Told my students that if you are able to physically stand up, then you are ‘on’ , if you can’t physically stand up, you are ‘in’. This is good because it covers the whole ‘on’ a bicycle dilemma too.

]]> By: Jo http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12581 Jo Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:48:58 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12581 i always explain the difference by saying think about the action. with a taxi or a car (which you get 'in') you just open the door and plonk your bum down. with modes that you on (bus, boat, train, etc) you have to enter and then walk before you can sit down. or something like that! i always explain the difference by saying think about the action. with a taxi or a car (which you get ‘in’) you just open the door and plonk your bum down. with modes that you on (bus, boat, train, etc) you have to enter and then walk before you can sit down.

or something like that!

]]> By: Nat http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12373 Nat Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:12:27 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12373 Oh yeah english is a stupid language. We have so many words that sound the same and mean different like their, there, they're. Seriously I am glad I don't have to learn it as a 2nd language it would do my nut in. Oh yeah english is a stupid language. We have so many words that sound the same and mean different like their, there, they’re. Seriously I am glad I don’t have to learn it as a 2nd language it would do my nut in.

]]> By: Phil Mitchell http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12352 Phil Mitchell Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:58:15 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12352 In "That's why", the "why" is a noun and not an interrogative. Note that "That is why" is not a question. Other interrogatives follow the same pattern: "What did you put in the soup?" "Pepper, that's what". The use of prepositions is very idiomatic and often follow no logic, so your answer "because that's the way it is" for the in/on problem is correct. In fact, different languages use different prepositions for the same phrase. For example, in German you say "zu Fuss" = "to Foot" for "on Foot", and you say "mit dem Zug"= with the train for "by Train". Why? Just because it is, that's why! In “That’s why”, the “why” is a noun and not an interrogative. Note that “That is why” is not a question. Other interrogatives follow the same pattern:
“What did you put in the soup?”
“Pepper, that’s what”.

The use of prepositions is very idiomatic and often follow no logic, so your answer “because that’s the way it is” for the in/on problem is correct. In fact, different languages use different prepositions for the same phrase. For example, in German you say “zu Fuss” = “to Foot” for “on Foot”, and you say “mit dem Zug”= with the train for “by Train”. Why? Just because it is, that’s why!

]]> By: gleek http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12304 gleek Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:59:43 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12304 this reminds me that there's also a difference in regional english here in the states. in the midwest we say "get IN line" and here in NY and the eastern states, they say "get ON line." then in britain i have heard "queue" used instead of "line". but then again, japanese has lots of regional differences too. my first japanese teacher was from osaka and her speech patterns and styles differed from all of my other japanese teachers that were from tokyo :) this reminds me that there’s also a difference in regional english here in the states. in the midwest we say “get IN line” and here in NY and the eastern states, they say “get ON line.” then in britain i have heard “queue” used instead of “line”.

but then again, japanese has lots of regional differences too. my first japanese teacher was from osaka and her speech patterns and styles differed from all of my other japanese teachers that were from tokyo :)

]]> By: Laura http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12302 Laura Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:10:37 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12302 you've already gotten your answer to the grammar question so I won't go there. My husband STILL tries to tell me "we don't have a word for that in Japanese" when I ask him to translate an odd word here or there for me. sigh. right. Japan has no word for sinusitus. Or bookshelf. I wish he'd either just say, "I don't know, check a dictionary (in the case of example #1) or say, "not right now, I'm busy doing xxxxxxx." (in the case of example #2.) English is so twisted though--we get off rather easy with the answer, "just because" as actually, that is often actually the truth! Laura you’ve already gotten your answer to the grammar question so I won’t go there.

My husband STILL tries to tell me “we don’t have a word for that in Japanese” when I ask him to translate an odd word here or there for me. sigh. right. Japan has no word for sinusitus. Or bookshelf. I wish he’d either just say, “I don’t know, check a dictionary (in the case of example #1) or say, “not right now, I’m busy doing xxxxxxx.” (in the case of example #2.)

English is so twisted though–we get off rather easy with the answer, “just because” as actually, that is often actually the truth!

Laura

]]> By: Katie http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12295 Katie Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:05:10 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12295 Yeah..Japanese sentance structure is so different from English..I don't blame him..Grammar is really hard...no doubt he'll learn about it at school and from his textbooks. Yeah..Japanese sentance structure is so different from English..I don’t blame him..Grammar is really hard…no doubt he’ll learn about it at school and from his textbooks.

]]> By: Nooh Girl in Tokyo http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12282 Nooh Girl in Tokyo Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:10:10 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12282 My hubby asked me similar questions the other day. He asked why we say "on the TV" and not "in TV", and why it is "at the table" and not by the table. It was so tricky, but after a few minutes of pondering, I tried to explain to him by saying that it all has to do with the shape of the object. For instance, with the TV, we dont see it as a box, but a flat (screen) that the image is projected on, therefore it is on. For at, I tried to explain that when we sit at the table, and made some crazy thing up about our bodies fitting the table when we sit with our legs under, our arms over, and the rest of our bodies beside it so it is netiher on nor by, but at... He seemed to totally get it at the time, and I am glad he didnt probe any further cos the more I thought about my explanation, the more I started to wonder myself... :) My hubby asked me similar questions the other day. He asked why we say “on the TV” and not “in TV”, and why it is “at the table” and not by the table. It was so tricky, but after a few minutes of pondering, I tried to explain to him by saying that it all has to do with the shape of the object. For instance, with the TV, we dont see it as a box, but a flat (screen) that the image is projected on, therefore it is on. For at, I tried to explain that when we sit at the table, and made some crazy thing up about our bodies fitting the table when we sit with our legs under, our arms over, and the rest of our bodies beside it so it is netiher on nor by, but at… He seemed to totally get it at the time, and I am glad he didnt probe any further cos the more I thought about my explanation, the more I started to wonder myself… :)

]]> By: adekun http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12281 adekun Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:16:29 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12281 cho muchakucha :? cho muchakucha :?

]]> By: enny http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12271 enny Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:45:21 +0000 http://www.cherryblossomadventures.com/2008/08/06/why-in-and-not-on/#comment-12271 Everyone has said was I was thinking! More basically, you're 'on' it because you're not steering it. You're 'in' a car because you're in charge of it. You can't be in a bike because there is no 'in' :o) Not that it is likely to make it any easier to understand - I don't know that my way of thinking is the best! Everyone has said was I was thinking!

More basically, you’re ‘on’ it because you’re not steering it.
You’re ‘in’ a car because you’re in charge of it.
You can’t be in a bike because there is no ‘in’ :o)

Not that it is likely to make it any easier to understand - I don’t know that my way of thinking is the best!

]]>