? for native English speakers and anyone else

[Mook]

and since Lauttasaari is seen first and foremost as a residential district and only secondarily in its geographical context as an island

Better to "rotate" the argument rather than to decide if the island or the residential district came first

on Lautasaari refers to something being on the island

in Lautasaari refers to something being in the residential district

... but there's a fair chance that the island came first.

[otyikondo]

and since Lauttasaari is seen first and foremost as a residential district and only secondarily in its geographical context as an island

Better to "rotate" the argument rather than to decide if the island or the residential district came first

on Lautasaari refers to something being on the island

in Lautasaari refers to something being in the residential district

... but there's a fair chance that the island came first.

Fair 'nough. I'll modify the sentence in quotes to read:


"and since Lauttasaari is NOW seen first and foremost as a residential district and only secondarily in its geographical context as an island"

OK?

[Mook]

and since Lauttasaari is seen first and foremost as a residential district and only secondarily in its geographical context as an island

Better to "rotate" the argument rather than to decide if the island or the residential district came first

on Lautasaari refers to something being on the island

in Lautasaari refers to something being in the residential district

... but there's a fair chance that the island came first.

Fair 'nough. I'll modify the sentence in quotes to read:


"and since Lauttasaari is NOW seen first and foremost as a residential district and only secondarily in its geographical context as an island"

OK?

Well language expresseshow you (mentally) view things; judging by this thread, at least 50% of the posters think that Lautasaari is an island...maybe we have to form a secret society to share our subversive ideas in private

[otyikondo]

But Mook, I suspect that a great many more than 50% of the people posting are NOT Finns, nor are they particularly privy to the way Finns think and express themselves to reflect how they mentally view things.

If I remember correctly, this all grew out of a dispute between an American ("on") and a Swedish-speaking Finn ("in"). The one sees the place as an island, the other sees it as a residential district and "a part of Helsinki", as I do. And I think Penelope does, too. I am not about to say whom is right, but would venture to suggest that the Finn's view of the place is at least justified. Possession being nine-tenths of the law, and all.

Expecting (or NOT, more like) ex-pats - many of whom have not been here very long - to see things through the eyes of Finns is what this board is all about. It's odd, but this thread could serve as a perfect microcosm of the entire message board. Some get it, some don't. Vive la difference! (shrug)

[Richard]

Larussa!

[otyikondo]

Larussa!

Yeah, but they are DOGS, so what do you expect?

http://www.lariq.net/tuhmelot/index.php?itemid=6

[Malla]

I think you missed the point. She was using Lautasaari as an example. She was talking about using in and on. As the conversation was in English, I stated from an English POV which one we would use. IN OR ON.

[GaffiGubbi]

There are no strict rules for these kind of situations. Finnish place names and their declination must be memorized. Here are some:

http://www.kotus.fi/huolto/kielitoimist ... nnat.shtml

This is not obvious for Finns, either. Many people say for example Laukaalla, when it should be Laukaassa.

[Rosamunda]

There are no strict rules for these kind of situations. Finnish place names and their declination must be memorized. Here are some:

http://www.kotus.fi/huolto/kielitoimist ... nnat.shtml

This is not obvious for Finns, either. Many people say for example Laukaalla, when it should be Laukaassa.

But just because the Finns say "on" Tampere and "in" Espoo has no bearing on English grammar. The original question was referring to Generally Accepted Principles of English Language Usage not Finnish.... and (British) English is becoming more and more anarchic anyway. There are no "rules" anymore.... just common usage....

[Hank W.]

There are no "rules" anymore.... just common usage....

Pray take heed: http://www.bartleby.com/116/

[ullanlinna]

To post my non-unique view to the thread, I vote the people who choose IN.

the question was if a restaurant was IN or ON Lauttasaari. Since it was a question of a restaurant situated in a populated area, I'd definitely choose IN Lauttasaari.

The fact that Finnish would clearly state Lauttasaaressa, may blurr my view, but still.

Comparable with IN Katajanokka (isle too), IN Kuusisaari, In Lehtisaari, IN Kulosaari. However, you could say for example that a flower can only be found ON Vallisaari or ON Isosaari.

So Lauttasaari refers to a part of the town, not to the island as a geographical phenomenon.

[Jason]

Does someone live on the UK or in the UK? Of course it is in the UK. This is an island.

Does someone live in Ireland or on Ireland. Again they live in Ireland.

In is more commonly used but both are correct.

I come from New Zealand with two islands. I lived in the North Island. I could have easily said I lived on the North Island.

I also think size of the island has a bit to do with the useage of the term.

Oh well that is my 2 cents worth

[dusty_bin]

Going back a way...

If the name is associated with a community of some kind then one would use in, just as for any other area. But if the association is not with community but with place then one is on the island.
To take Hank's example, it would be distinctly odd to say that one was living on Manhatten, but entirely correct to be living on Manhatten island. There are some grey areas; for example, I do not associate Suomenlinna with a community. I know there are a few people living there, but for me, the place is island first and community second, indeed the community, such as it is may even have a different name which would for sure be referred to with the word in; thus I would say on Suomenlinna.

Islands are more complex than land based areas, in as much as we see them as distinct entities. In the caseof the OP, the speaker was referring to a restaurant in a geographic location, the location simply happened to be an island. This is similar to referring to a restaurant on a particular and distinct street, hence the on. (One would not correctly use the word in to describe a place on a street.)

I guess it does boil down to the community thing. One is always in a community never on it and always on a geographic object and never in it. (unless it is a cave or a hole...)

As others have noted, Finnish usage counts for nothing, we are talking about English usage here.

But, bottom line, it was rude of hubby to publically upbraid his wife for the point anyway. He then showed his lack of knowledge because he did not recognise the fine point of usage and that his wife was correct from the perspective of a native English speaker and normal usage. The guy did himself no favours!

[Hank W.]

Theres also in Helsinki a few "saari" islands as placenames that are not islands any more due to landfills.

[otyikondo]

Theres also in Helsinki a few "saari" islands as placenames that are not islands any more due to landfills.

Herne-, Munkki-, Jätkä-, and Salmi- for starters. And I don't think many would volunteer "on Vuosaari", either.

Just goes to show the folly of trying to "translate" names in order to fit the "right" preposition to them.

Lauttasaari hasn't had a ferry for 50 years at least!

Correction: It hasn't had a ferry since 1936, when the bridge opened!