Timeline for The use of preposition in this case
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 1:21 | comment | added | michael_timofeev | Also, by changing the original verb "travelled" to "traversed" you are changing the sentence. Traversed means to cross and doesn't require a preposition but this doesn't mean that travelled now doesn't require a preposition. What if the verb were "ran?" "I ran the school halls," or "I ran California." Does that work? | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 1:13 | comment | added | michael_timofeev | You can't travel "on" a forest. You travel through or in a forest. I just don't get this. "I traveled across NY this summer" or "I traveled in NY this summer." are both grammatically correct and easily recognizable as such even by non-experts. The other possibility isn't something we all agree upon, and if I were an ESL learner I would want a safe and sure answer, not "Well, maybe," "It could be under certain circumstances not always encountered," or "that's an interesting point depending on whether it's a blah blah blah verb." Just my two cents worth. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 0:26 | comment | added | JEL | @michael_timofeev, that's an interesting question. Let me answer it (perhaps) by asking you if, after you've visited a National Forest, you've traveled on or in the National Forest--that is, not the forest itself, but the geopolitically defined area? Do you understand any distinction between the prepositional senses in that case? | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 23:47 | comment | added | michael_timofeev | I really don't understand this. If you traveled in NY use "in." If you went through it or across it, use those prepositions. Why leave them out and cause confusion, and have to hunt around on the Internet or style books for justification? | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 19:15 | comment | added | JEL | @PeterShor, your second sight (forgive the word play) is mostly accurate; and again, you've reversed the actual way things work. In an absolute sense, my use determines the definition, not the other way around. Obviously, there's a feedback loop with the dictionary as a reference (and a lexicon as a compilation) and the actual senses of words in use, but the second, not the former, is the original source. | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 19:07 | comment | added | Peter Shor | ... and in none of these three uses does it mean they traversed New York, if by traverse you mean go through New York on your way to somewhere else. I see there is another definition of traverse New York which does match what travel New York actually means when it is used (but that definition wouldn't contrast with traveled inside New York). | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | JEL | @PeterShor, Here are three (of the many possible) extant uses illustrating the case: "Jake traveled New York State ..." Blackman Upick Apple Farm; "Hochul, who has traveled New York State ..." FIT Newsroom; "The photographer Paul Nathan and his wife Nadine Rubin Nathan have traveled New York ..." HuffPost Books. | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 18:34 | comment | added | JEL | I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Although I cite the dictionary as a reference and use it as a device to save myself the work of distilling or extracting definitions, what informs (and sometimes misinforms) my understanding of what words mean is how I've encountered them in use. | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 18:14 | comment | added | Peter Shor | I think the v. tr. definition is meant for constructions like "traveled the king's road" or "traveled the New Jersey turnpike", not "traveled New York". | |
| Aug 20, 2015 at 18:06 | history | answered | JEL | CC BY-SA 3.0 |