c4countdown

Kirk Bevins wrote:[...] arriving into Nottingham
[...] arriving to Nottingham

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:[...] arriving into Nottingham
[...] arriving to Nottingham

I despair.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:[...] arriving into Nottingham
[...] arriving to Nottingham

I despair.

Stop despairing and do some work. We all make mistakes, apart from you it seems.

Phil Reynolds wrote: I'm guessing that you travel on trains a lot and have picked up "arriving into" from that, since it seems mainly to be train announcers who are spreading this pointless solecism. "This train arrives into Manchester Piccadilly at 09.40"... grrr.

Kirk Bevins wrote:That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

Nah, sorry. You arrive at a station or other specific locality; you arrive in a city or country; you can occasionally even arrive on something (e.g. "reporters arrived on the scene"). But never "arrive into".

I think (though please someone correct me if you know better) the problem grammatically is that the word "arrive" means the act of reaching a location. "At the station", "in Paris" etc. all describe locations, so you can arrive there. But "into the station" is a movement towards a location, not a location itself. I haven't phrased this very well but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Kirk Bevins wrote:What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

I think you may have missed his point.

"Arrive into" sounds horrible. It won't catch on.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

Nah, sorry. You arrive at a station or other specific locality; you arrive in a city or country; you can occasionally even arrive on something (e.g. "reporters arrived on the scene"). But never "arrive into".

I think (though please someone correct me if you know better) the problem grammatically is that the word "arrive" means the act of reaching a location. "At the station", "in Paris" etc. all describe locations, so you can arrive there. But "into the station" is a movement towards a location, not a location itself. I haven't phrased this very well but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:My two cents is that you CAN arrive in a station

Kirk Bevins wrote:You need to get out more.

Charlie Reams wrote:I mainly see that you're insisting on adherence to a fairly pointless set of arbitary rules about which preposition goes where. You can whine all you like but language evolves where it likes.

Kirk Bevins wrote:What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

Neil Zussman wrote:Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I mainly see that you're insisting on adherence to a fairly pointless set of arbitary rules about which preposition goes where. You can whine all you like but language evolves where it likes.

Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

Neil Zussman wrote:Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Jeff Clayton wrote:"Arrive into" is an expression not unheard of in bus and coach circles, though not used so widely since on-board announcements are unusual.

But this leads to me an interesting counter-argument for trains. Whilst staff making announcements on the likes of East Midlands Trains, NX East Coast, Virgin Pendolinos etc do sometimes use "arriving into", I can't recall hearing it on any trains with automated equipment - I think it's "at" on NX East Anglia's 360s and on TransPennine's 185s, whilst c2c's 357s go for a more simple "the next station is...".

Can anyone confirm / elaborate?


Jeff

Neil Zussman wrote:Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote:Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Yeah, look, about that. In my defence...

No, I can't think of anything.

From Alan Turing to this in less than a year. I would be having a serious word with my agent, if I had one.

It did give me some grim amusement that, when I first read Kirk's post telling me I need to get out more, I had just got in from an evening spent rehearsing a dance routine which will require me to take all my clothes off in front of somewhere in excess of 1500 people. If anything I need to get out less.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

Yep. Anything where the confusion makes things unclear (using "deduct" for "deduce") or destroys useful distinctions ("imply" vs "infer") is worth objecting to. Saying "arrive into" doesn't cause either of these problems unless you're deliberately seeking to be confused, so there's no point fighting it; and, like the utterly pointless and unmotivated war on trailing prepositions, it won't make any difference if you do.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

Yep. Anything where the confusion makes things unclear (using "deduct" for "deduce") or destroys useful distinctions ("imply" vs "infer") is worth objecting to. Saying "arrive into" doesn't cause either of these problems unless you're deliberately seeking to be confused, so there's no point fighting it; and, like the utterly pointless and unmotivated war on trailing prepositions, it won't make any difference if you do.

Actually yeah, I think I remember we had this discussion before and you said that. I must of forgotten.

John Bosley wrote:Clearly they announce that the train is 'arriving into' because it has not quite got there yet or is almost certainly not stationary. This can then be used in their defence when they are sued by a passenger who got off while it is still moving and did himself damage. 'Into' gives the vague feeling of movement.

George Jenkins wrote:When you get to my age, you arrive at what you want to say, it arrives in your head ready, but then out it arrives into a vacuum...

Gavin Chipper wrote:... I must of forgotten.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote:Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Yeah, look, about that. In my defence...

No, I can't think of anything.

From Alan Turing to this in less than a year. I would be having a serious word with my agent, if I had one.

It did give me some grim amusement that, when I first read Kirk's post telling me I need to get out more, I had just got in from an evening spent rehearsing a dance routine which will require me to take all my clothes off in front of somewhere in excess of 1500 people. If anything I need to get out less.