Print

Print


All this reminds me of the old days at university, where I must have heard
all this before, but I'm not sure any of that knowledge still remains in my
head. Thanks for the tips anyway; I vaguely remember that you can even use
"onto" ;-). However, "on" is what we use in Dutch, so that immediately
sounds wrong to me. Along the lines of what you two said, I think which one
you want to use depends on whether you want to put the focus on the place or
on the activity, or both/neither. That sounds reasonable, so for now I'll
stick with/to/on that ;-)

Thanks,

Arwin

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens Marcia Karp
> Verzonden: vrijdag 9 maart 2001 13:46
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography - erratum
>
>
> Nancy Gish wrote in response to Arwin on Arwin:
>
> > One could say either "on" or "to" in that particular phrase;
> they just have
> > slightly different meanings.  But I couldn't give you a rule
> for when both are
> > ok and when they aren't.  In this case, "on" implies that it is on your
> > forehead AND it is sticking.  "To" implies that it the sticking
> is TO the
> > forehead.  Slight but not the same.
> >
> >
> > That's probably sticking too - "on" appears to be one of those horrible
> > Dutchisms that I'm so afraid of when writing English ... ;-)
> >
> > A.
> >
> > > Before you know it I'll be wearing thick rimmed
> > > glasses and have a four letter label sticking on my forehead. ;-)
>
> Aren't these denotations, not implications?
>
>
>