64

I'm sure virtually everyone agrees that people live on the Isle of Wight, but in Ireland.

Apparently the usage depends somewhat on physical size, but that can't be the whole story. How exactly do we decide which form to use? And are there any really glaring 'outliers' that don't fit the normal pattern?

LATER - I must just add that the most uncertain case I've found so far is The Falklands. Most people go for in there, but a substantial minority (about 1 in 3) opt for on.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • 1
    Is the Isle of Wight larger than Ireland? – Thursagen May 09 '11 at 04:24
  • Ireland:70,286 km2. Isle of Wight:380 km2. Antarctica:14,000,000 km2. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 05:37
  • 27
    Isn't there a semantic difference between the sentences? You live on a land mass but you live in a nation/city/place. So you could rearrange that to be "I live on the isle of Ireland". So I'm not sure size is relevant. The isles of wight/mann/scilly are the names of the islands themselves, not of the countries they represent. Edit: whoops, Neil Fein got an answer in first. – Andy F May 09 '11 at 09:00
  • 7
    The answer you are looking for is 42 acres. – MSpeed May 09 '11 at 09:50
  • @billynomates: First define your terms. Douglas Adams only gave us the number, not the units. Maybe it's 42 square kilometers, or square miles. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 12:42
  • 7
    @FumbleFingers He meant 42 acres. He told me personally. We were bros. – MSpeed May 09 '11 at 13:00
  • 1
    When I read the question on the hot list, thought it was about physics! – cregox May 09 '11 at 14:24
  • @Cawas: Apparently we're a broad church here at EL&U. Quite apart from exploring the geographical and political aspects of the question, we've got references to astrophysics here. Only interplanetary thus far, but perhaps someone will reach out to interstellar regions soon. How about it, Trekkies? – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 14:39
  • I think one would live in Australia but on New Zealand. :) – Macke May 09 '11 at 14:51
  • 1
    @Marcus Lindblom: Actually it was pointed out to me earlier that one lives in New Zealand, but on North or South Island. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 15:13
  • 8
    I live on Earth. – Jon Purdy May 09 '11 at 15:40
  • And what about "at"? I live on/in Ireland, in/on Earth, in Dublin, on/in/at McPaddy Street. This is all very confusing. – MSpeed May 09 '11 at 15:42
  • 1
    @billynomates: Let's not get carried away! The Welsh in particular are prone to say they live "by 'ere**". Prepositionally speaking, it seems one can live almost anywhere. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 15:50
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers: You mean live anypreposition a place. – Jon Purdy May 09 '11 at 16:09
  • @Jon Purdy: I was being tichy (tongue-in-cheek), but 5 gets you 10 someone will come up with another preposition that can be used in this way. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 16:19
  • @FumbleFingers: I love saying "by yerr" whilst in England. It confuses the hell out of people. – MSpeed May 10 '11 at 08:05
  • 2
    I live off the land. Also consider "I live overseas", "I live above ground", "I live for Israel", ... – Jim Balter May 11 '11 at 23:29
  • I don't see where Jon agreed to any bet. – Jim Balter May 11 '11 at 23:37
  • @FumbleFingers "you can see why now" -- Yeah, I guess I was a stupid ignoramus before (my own posts). "a nit-picker might disqualify it" -- anyone who didn't want to give you their money for no good reason would disqualify "live off the land", if they had been silly enough to take your bet. But there was no bet, there was just you talking to yourself. – Jim Balter May 12 '11 at 01:17
  • 1
    I'm sure virtually everyone agrees that people live on the Isle of Wight - if you can call that living. – Tom Anderson Sep 07 '11 at 17:40
  • @Jon Purdy: Hmm. There are people on Mount Everest. Maybe it's not size, but ratio of width to height? Planets, islands, and mountains have a low ratio, but countries and cities have a high one. – Tom Anderson Sep 07 '11 at 17:42
  • @Tom Anderson: Nah. I think Neil pretty much nailed this one. The dominant factor is whether or not the area is primarily recognised as a social/political/cultural entity, or a geographical one. But as ever, there are exceptions. And "fuzzy" ones, of which The Falklands is definitely my favourite, as a Brit. – FumbleFingers Sep 07 '11 at 17:52
  • I would guess that the difference between 3-D and 2-D might have something to do with it, too. Fillmore goes into this in the first two chapters of his 1971 Santa Cruz Deixis Lectures. – John Lawler Jan 18 '12 at 21:31
  • @John Lawler: I haven't yet followed up all your background links about this 2D/3D stuff yet, but I'm supposing it's a bit more complex than just plane geometry. When I first asked the question I really did think "size matters" - but Neil straightened me out on that one as deftly as a sex therapist! – FumbleFingers Jan 18 '12 at 23:02
  • The first two chapters (intro and Space) go into dimensionality and prepositions. Very nice examples. – John Lawler Jan 18 '12 at 23:04
  • @John Lawler: haha - Filmore put me straight into "broad-based interpretation" mode there! So on his May we come in? (partly biased by his mention that C might be a pet beaver) I couldn't read the rest without constantly thinking it might have been said by trail-dusty cowboys asking the Madame of the town bordello whether they could dispense with the "withdrawal method" of contraception! Interested to see mention of Robin Lakoff, on account of a latter-day namesake in my answer to this question back when I first started posting here. – FumbleFingers Jan 18 '12 at 23:45
  • 1
    George and Robin were my thesis advisors, back in 1973. We would pretty much agree on most things, though not on everything. I was at Santa Cruz when the lectures were given, and it was all new stuff to me then. That was the first mention I can remember of the term deixis. – John Lawler Jan 19 '12 at 00:03
  • 1
    @John Lawler: I didn't move in such rarefied circles (just a one-year module in linguistics in '71), but I remember having my eyes opened by our lecturer showing us how little information is contained in the actual words of a typical statement, compared to how much we have to "back-fill" using our knowledge of the universe in general, and the local context in particular. I hadn't even seen a computer at that time, but it seems to me I've spent the 40-odd years since then explaining to people that computers aren't going to be understanding natural language any time soon. – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 00:25
  • You might enjoy our book, then. It's 13 years old, but it forecast the future pretty well, at least in the last 2 chapters. – John Lawler Jan 19 '12 at 02:19
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 02:39
  • The Man in the Moon is an awkward customer. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 17 '12 at 22:35

6 Answers6

48

In my experience, this is often based on whether one is speaking of geographical versus political locations, and also the context of what you're saying. You would be "on" an island or continent or planet, but you'd be "in" a country or city or region.

So:

  • One would live in England, China, Canada, New York City, North America. (Political locales.)

  • One might be located on the British isles, Manhattan Island, on the continent of North America, the planet Mars. (Geographical locations.)

It's kind of fuzzy, though, because I've heard of people living in Africa or Antarctica. Can anyone think of exceptions to this—this is English, of course there will be some—or help clarify further?

Edit: Wow, that's quite the discussion going on in the comments!

I'm convinced that while this answer is an extreme generalization, it does seems to serve as a good starting point, if nothing else. Like everything else in English, there are no absolutes.

  • There's some consensus that multiple islands (Hawaii, Japan) forces a political interpretation, and you'd live in Japan but on the island of Honshu (although you'd live in Honshu).
  • There's also some disagreement about whether you live on or in a continent.
Goodbye Stack Exchange
  • 4,993
  • 1
    We also live in a world, but on a planet, on the Earth even. – Sam May 09 '11 at 05:12
  • 9
    @Sam - Speak for yourself, Earthling. :) – Goodbye Stack Exchange May 09 '11 at 05:21
  • 1
    Antarctica may be a pivotal case. I know people don't really live there permanently, but while they are there, I suspect they usually live on it. Even though it's much bigger than, say, Vatican City. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 05:34
  • 3
    Not sure about this, but maybe it has something to do with man-made borders? As in, countries and cities have borders, you live in the borders. But continents and islands have coastlines, even though the landmass keeps going until the sea floor. – Goodbye Stack Exchange May 09 '11 at 05:43
  • 3
    Do I live on the British Isles or in them? I would say in. – Mild Fuzz May 09 '11 at 11:06
  • 4
    +1 It's not a question of size but of context. Most New Yorkers live in Manhattan, but on Long Island. (Well, most New Yorkers actually live in Brooklyn or Queens). However, if for some reason they did say Manhattan Island, they would indeed say on it. Similarly, people would live on the island of Great Britain, even though they live in Great Britain. – Peter Shor May 09 '11 at 12:18
  • 1
    @Mild Fuzz - I would say one lives on the British Isles, but in Great Britan. – Goodbye Stack Exchange May 09 '11 at 12:19
  • 3
    Indeed, I think multiple islands forces a political interpretation (e.g. you can't live "on" Hawaii, you can only live on Maui, the Big Island, etc). Living "on" a continent doesn't work for me either - you live "in" Africa, Australia, Antarctica, North America, South America, Eurasia. – ncoghlan May 09 '11 at 12:47
  • 3
    I like the core insight of politics vs geography, but I think the relationship needs to be refined a bit. When the two align (e.g. Australia, Tasmania, arguably Antarctica depending on how someone views it), the political interpretation wins (i.e. use "in"). Similarly, politics wins when the political entity spans multiples islands, or when the regional name has a land border (including the Africa/Eurasia border and the North/South America border at the Suez and Panama canals). – ncoghlan May 09 '11 at 12:51
  • 1
    Only for purely geographical descriptions does "on" make sense: "on the Australian mainland", "on the same island as London". However, at the planetary level, I think @Alain's answer kicks in and those will always be "on" (due to the whole surface-of-a-sphere aspect). People may someday live "in" Ceres and other asteroids though (albeit in a quite literal sense). – ncoghlan May 09 '11 at 12:55
  • 1
    Also, a 'near neighbour' to someone living on any island may be said to live on the mainland. But of course that mainlander might live on the moor, in the valley, or up the mountain. And within that, they might live up or down the road, or on some particular named road. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 12:56
  • 1
    Anecdotally, "on" Greenland sounds wrong to me. – mskfisher May 09 '11 at 14:59
  • @mskfisher: Me too. The point is that some people (maybe 10% if I'm to believe Google more than it merits) go for in with Greenland, which at least makes it something of a borderline case. Notwithstanding @Neil Fein's earlier comment, I don't think there's anything like even that level of support for people living on the British Isles. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 15:21
  • 1
    I live on the continent of North America, while I reside in America, not on America. The continent, or physical ground, is what I live on. The country, or political entity, is what I live in. – Todd Hopkinson May 09 '11 at 15:30
  • I really think this is the rule, not sure there are exceptions though. Faroe Islands or Sri Lanka hit my mind first, but it turns out, that people live in Faroe Islands/Sri Lanka. – Ilya Saunkin May 09 '11 at 16:00
  • @EveryoneAbove: OK, I'm sold on the politics vs geography (+culture?) angle. Not least because it lets me link the uncertain political status of The Falklands with significant ambivalence about which preposition to use in that particular case. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 16:39
  • I think the political vs geographical 'rule' is over general. I suspect that you always live 'in' a political area, but can live both 'in' and 'on' a geographical one. I live in Tasmania, which is geographical. I live in the state of Tasmania, which is political. I live in Australia. No one lives on Australia, nor on Tasmania. – Richard A May 10 '11 at 00:48
  • @Richard A: I'm not buying into any absolute rules. There are several 'tendencies', including use of in for social / political / cultural locations and those which plural names, on for anything called Island or Isle, etc. No rule has absolute priority, and there's not total agreement on correct usage for some locations. But I'm reasonably satisfied with this particular answer (apart from @Neil Fein's somewhat odd assertion that I might live on the British Isles). – FumbleFingers May 10 '11 at 03:27
  • Having said that, although it sound totally unacceptable for me to live on the British Isles, I'd be less bothered by that usage when refering to, say, plants that grow on the British Isles. I still don't really like it though. – FumbleFingers May 10 '11 at 03:34
  • @FumbleFingers - That's how we say it here in New Joisey. You live in Britan, in England, but on those British Isles. Gonna go have me a hoagie at the shore now. – Goodbye Stack Exchange May 10 '11 at 03:35
  • @Neil Fein: I may have missed something, but I can't see anyone saying you can live on [some continent]. On the continent of Africa, sure, but for all named continents it's in. Your answer implies there's some disagreement/discussion on that one, but I don't see it. – FumbleFingers Jun 06 '11 at 22:19
5

I live in Manhattan. I also live on Long Island. Bear in mind that Manhattan is much smaller than Long Island.

MetaEd
  • 28,488
logicbloke
  • 59
  • According to Neil, that's because Manhattan is a political entity. BUT: People live in Manhattan, and on Staten Island. Both of them are islands, and both of them are the same kind of political entity (borough of New York City). So there's not really any logic to this. – Mike Baranczak May 09 '11 at 16:42
  • 6
    @Mike Baranczak: I think the (imperfectly applied) logic is that you normally live on anything with Island or Isle in its name, and that takes precedence over another rule saying you normally live in any placename generally recognised as being a political / administrative entity. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 16:50
  • @FumbleFingers: No, people definitely live in Rhode Island. – Kosmonaut May 09 '11 at 21:43
  • @Kosmonaut: I'm not saying they don't. I was simply explaining to Mike that there are a couple of general rules with reasonably consistent priority. But that doesn't preclude the odd exception proving the rule. Besides, as The Falklands clearly shows, there will always be some cases where both usages coexist, and it's pointless trying to identify the 'correct' one. – FumbleFingers May 09 '11 at 22:28
  • 2
    @kosmonaut Rhode Island isn't an Island! – Joel Spolsky Jun 16 '11 at 03:53
  • 2
    @Joel Spolsky: "Rhode Island" was a counterexample for the assertion that you "live on anything with Island or Isle in its name". Clearly more goes into it than just the name. – Kosmonaut Jun 16 '11 at 11:59
2

Would you live on the Napa River Valley or in it? I think it may be more related to the containment of the item/object in question. For example, I can stand on the ground, atop a rock, but in a hole, river, or valley. Similarly, fish live in the ocean, but ships float on it.

In this case it might be more appropriate to think of in as within. I'm not going in the door, I'm standing within the walls of the house. The shortened version of that being, "I'm standing in the house."

The same could apply to continents and why the accepted answer notes that some may make reference to "living in Africa." This is because they are within the borders of the continent of Africa.

James Waldby - jwpat7
  • 66,660
Kevin Peno
  • 129
  • 1
    You live in the Napa River Valley. However, if you are right next to the water (or have a houseboat), you could say you live on the Napa River. – Nate Eldredge Jun 14 '12 at 14:55
1

It also depends on the physical geography. You live in the Dales (valleys) but on the Moors.

mgb
  • 24,191
1

You live "on" a hump, but "in" a bowl. Once something is big enough that it becomes larger or more irregular (no longer expressible as a single characteristic) than a bowl, you change from "in" to "on."

Therefore, "in" Africa or other continent. "In" Ireland. When you express the concept of a country as an island, you emphasize it standing out of the water and it becomes a hump, and you change to "on."

This can apply in the plural, so The Falklands can be either multiple bumps, or one political entity.

I believe this generalizes all the other comments made, even the one about Earth - a bump in space.

Listen to the sound of "on the British Isles" and "in the British Isles" and you will be able to discern the isles rising out of the sea in the first case, and being an indistinguishable entity in the second.

shipr
  • 1,756
0

Perhaps it's not merely the size that matters, but also the shape. For example, the word on seems to flow rather naturally when talking about with peninsulas; I know people from Massachusetts rarely use the preposition in, instead opting for on:

  • He was born on Cape Cod, then moved away when he was in his twenties.
  • We'll be vacationing on the Cape next summer.
  • George was born in Cape Town, but now he lives on Cape Cod.
  • Well, my goodness. How often do you see a bear on Cape Cod?

I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule that will always work. Sometimes local culture might favor one preposition over the other.

J.R.
  • 58,828
  • 5
  • 95
  • 196
  • I think it's clear from other answers/comments that there's no "hard and fast rule" in play. Google Books, for example, reports about 2M results for both *in* and *on the Falkland Islands, so even the presence of the word "islands" doesn't force the same preposition from everyone. In the end I think the dominant factor is geographical on* versus political in, but even that's only a tendency, not a rule. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '12 at 16:25
  • @FumbleFingers: I agree; the only rule is, "There is no one rule," and that was already pretty well-established. (I merely noticed nothing had been said about peninsulas yet, and thought it might be worth adding the note.) – J.R. Jun 14 '12 at 17:24
  • Yeah - I think I already knew there wouldn't be an absolute rule when I first posed the question. But I did feel a bit sheepish when I realised my original assumption counted for nothing (size loses out to administrative allegiance as well as to performance! :) The note is noted, but I can't in all conscience upvote it! – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '12 at 20:15
  • Fine by me if you don't want to upvote it ~ I sure wouldn't want you to violate your conscience! :^) It just felt good to get it off my chest. Sometimes the contribution is reward enough, all by itself. – J.R. Jun 14 '12 at 21:20
  • It is a good point, and well made. If it had been a comment, I'm sure I'd have upvoted it straight off. The bar's higher for answers though. Neil's answer went through a fair amount of discussion & revision before I upvoted it, and it wasn't until quite a bit later that I finally "accepted" it (so maybe I'll surprise you with an unexpected upvote many weeks from now! :) – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '12 at 23:39