What is the difference between the following two:
A young bird was flying in cold weather; after awhile, her wings froze up and she fell to the ground.
A young bird was flying in cold weather; after awhile, her wings froze up and she fell on the ground.
I understand that the first conveys the movement toward the ground, while the second merely says that she fell on the ground. But I am not sure which one to pick. Is there something more to the usage of these two prepositions?
This may sound obvious, but on emphasizes what was landed on. What if the bird didn't land on the ground? There's a good chance that you'd use on if the bird landed atop something, and in if the bird landed inside something.
The bird landed on the picnic table.
The bird landed on the hood of my car.
The bird landed on the roof of our house.The bird landed in the back of my truck.
The bird landed in the birdbath.
The bird landed in the woods.
So, on the ground is perfectly fine, but you can also use to the ground, when you'd rather emphasize the direction of the fall, as opposed to the landing place. Both can be found in literature:
Shortly afterwards the bat again fell on the ground and this time was caught by another weasel.1
A few hours later the bird fell to the ground with the arrow right through it.2
although, after running some Ngrams, fell to the ground seems much more common than fell on the ground,3 but there are some apparent exceptions.
1from The Bat and the Weasel, as told in 365 Bedtime Stories by Christine Allison, 1998.
2from Sky Stories: Ancient and Modern by Roger Ptak, 1998.
3It should be noted that not too many Ngram results link to references of birds falling to (or on) the ground, but far more refer to people instead – sometimes in drunken stupors, sometimes from sheer exhaustion, sometimes in shows of repentence or thanksgiving, or even as a result of battle wounds.
You can fall to the ground only if you are in the air.
When referring to human subjects, "Falling to the ground" is generally a little less violent/forceful. It seems to refer to your final state: you fell to "a position that was on or near the ground". You may or may not have actually impacted the ground itself. (You could be on your knees, on all fours, crouching/ducking, etc.)
"Falling on the ground" is more forceful. It seems to refer to the idea that you fell on the ground: you did actually hit the ground itself, which could leave you flat on your back or sprawling on your stomach/side etc.
When referring to inanimate subjects, the phrases are generally interchangeable.
Subjectively, I feel there is a difference between the two. Since the focus of "fell to the ground" is on the distance moved to the ground, I would expect the next sentence to focus on the damage to the wings or life of the bird.
Since "fell on the ground" is a much more common phrase, (fell on the stairs, fall on the playground, etc), it has its own feel. It would not be unlikely for the next sentence to say the bird got up and flew off again (without mentioning any injuries at all).
While the 'on' version may be wrong, it certainly doesn't sound wrong, and would sound quite natural in a child's story.
I think the phrase fall on the ground is much more commonly used when with animate objects that are already at least partly grounded.
The fell on the ground in a tantrum.
The teenagers fell on the ground laughing.
I do not think this phrase is as frequently used for inanimate objects.
The terms fell to the ground and fell onto the ground could be used for animate or inanimate objects, regardless of their initial location.
As the case tipped, the books fell to the ground.
Tripping on the curb, she fell to the ground.
As the engine failed, the rocket fell to the ground.
At the end of the race, the runner fell onto the ground exhausted.
If someone asks "Where is the pen which was on the desk just a minute ago", it could receive the response "It has fallen on the floor" - and to me that sounds idiomatic. It would not seem right to use "to" in that instance. Because the pen is currently "on the floor"
But if I say - "when the wind dropped the kite fell to the ground" that seems idiomatic.
Is it not therefore the case that we use "on" for statements of condition - "something has fallen on the roof of the car"? But we would use "to" descriptively for the action of falling - "the tree, which had been swaying in the wind all afternoon, finally fell to the ground".
