Dear Arwin,

All right except one would not say--idiomatically--"sticking onto the 
forhead."  Don't ask me why; it's just not the way one would say it.  English 
prepositions are very arbitrary and seem very dependent on idiom.

Date sent:      	Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:24:38 +0100
Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
From:           	"Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>
To:             	<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography - erratum

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 ;-)



> -----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?