? for native English speakers and anyone else

[karen]

Over the weekend some friends and I got together. There was a conversation in English where a Swede-Finn husband corrected his American wife. She and I are from similar places and have no experience with islands. The conversation about a restaurant was something like this:

Her:... it's on Lauttasaari
Him: it's IN Lauttasaari

She said it the way I would have said it. I asked my husband later how he would say it in Finnish and he said that it would be Lauttasaaressa because Lauttasaari is also a place like Leppävaara or Matinkylä. So I understand where the husband was coming from.

But here's my question: How do other native English speakers, especially with island experience, refer to the location of a place that is in/on an island? I've been going over this in my head and under my breath almost all weekend and I'm still coming up with ON. I'm open to learning something new or a confirmation of my way of thinking. As I've stated, I have no experience at all with islands or cities on islands. Maybe it's because the place has "saari" in the name and I'm stuck in a language rut.

[RA]

Now I'm confused too!

If there's the word island in the sentence I'd definetly use ON.
Like: It's on Rusinga island.

Lauttasaari??? I think both would be correct, depending on the way you think.....Lauttasaari=Lautta island(?) It's on Lautta island = It's ON Lauttasaari.

But then for some islands we use IN. It's in England, It's in Madagascar... but those are names of countries....
Aaaargh Somebody who knows grammar, help.

[Rosamunda]

I would use "in" for any populated island ie: with buildings, town(s), and people. I would use "on" for an island that is virtually uninhabited like most of the islands in the Espoo archipelago. So, in Lauttasaari, in Kulosaari etc but probably on Korkeasaari because there are only animals there

[Hank W.]

I'd say "in" because its a "part of the city".
Agree with the logic of Lauttasaari vs. Korkeasaari.
Do you live in or on Katajanokka?
Are you in or on Manhattan?

But one has to remember the in/on is confusing to Finns as well, as every place is arbitrary, You live in Turussa, Helsingissä, Jyväskylässä, but then all of a sudden Tampereella, Virroilla...

[SGaudreau]

Technically both are correct. There is a slight difference in the usage depending upon usage.

Example:
In is the least specific, on is more specific, and at is the most specific.

With time expressions:

in 2005
in January
on Monday
at two o’clock.

With location expressions:

I live in Pennsylvania.
In live in Pittsburgh.
I live on 10th Street.
I live at 345 East 10th Street.

[posseidon]

After some thought I would conclude that you must use 'in' when referring
to position regarding a proper noun, e..g 'to live in Åland' , and to use 'on'
when referring to an improper noun - e.g. 'to live on the Isle of Man' -
Isle of Man in itself is a proper noun, however 'Isle' is not and is the
subject of the sentence and therefore takes precedence when considering
the preposition to use. 'Lauttasaari' is similar to 'Isle of Man', however the fact
that it refers to the 'island of Lautta' is only explicit in the context of the
Finnish language, not English, and therefore it is considered as a whole
a proper noun and you live 'in' it, not 'on' it.

[RA]

After some thought I would conclude that you must use 'in' when referring
to position regarding a proper noun, e..g 'to live in Åland' , and to use 'on'
when referring to an improper noun - e.g. 'to live on the Isle of Man' -
Isle of Man in itself is a proper noun, however 'Isle' is not and is the
subject of the sentence and therefore takes precedence when considering
the adverb to use. 'Lauttasaari' is similar to 'Isle of Man', however the fact
that it refers to the 'island of Lautta' is only explicit in the context of the
Finnish language, not English, and therefore it is considered as a whole
a proper noun and you live 'in' it, not 'on' it.

This all seems to make more sense now, but I must ask another question, that's really muddling it a bit more. Americans do tend to say ' I live on Long Island', isn't Long Island a proper noun? Or would this then be another of the American English / British English differences? Or then another exception to the rule?

[posseidon]

Americans do tend to say ' I live on Long Island', isn't Long Island a proper noun?

This is a similar example to 'Isle of Man'. 'Long Island' is a proper noun, but the 'Island'
is the subject of the sentence and takes precedence - 'island' is improper and takes the
'on' form. As someone posted earlier 'in' is more specific than 'on' as it relates to a
particular place, i.e. a named place.

[Andrew_S]

I think "on" an island is more common but "in" could be used if it's mostly one town.

Should one say in the station or on the station? Either.
Should one say in Canterbury or at Canterbury? Either.

BTW I live "in" a mountain (vuoressa) according to the local Finnish usage. I used to live either "in" or "on" a hill (mäessä or mäellä), as the locals weren't in full agreement.

[Amiel]

I say ON an island.

[otyikondo]

I would use "in" for any populated island ie: with buildings, town(s), and people. I would use "on" for an island that is virtually uninhabited like most of the islands in the Espoo archipelago. So, in Lauttasaari, in Kulosaari etc but probably on Korkeasaari because there are only animals there

A delightful spin-off from Penelope's eminently sensible post:

ON an island, but when two or three islands are gathered together, as in the case of the Scillies, the Seychelles or the Maldives or any decent archipelago, it's suddenly back to IN, regardless of habitation.

As for places like Kuusisaari or Kulosaari or Lehtisaari, I'd always put proper name and association (in this instance clearly-defined suburb/district/residential area) before geography and would go for "in Lauttasaari", just as I think it sounds daft to say "he lives on Manhattan".

HOWEVER...some inexplicable and potent magnetic force drives me towards saying "he lives on Åland" rather than "he lives in Åland", though I suppose to be precise I could stick in "Islands" after it and then I'd be quite happy with "lives in the Åland Islands".

I guess it's in part because I do not consider the Helsinki "island suburbs" as bonafide islands at all - you don't exactly need to get your feet wet getting there. There's a nice restaurant on Pihlajasaari, however, and (even though there's a bridge), there's an open-air folk museum on - rather than in - Seurasaari.

Just goes to show how limiting is a grammar book - unless it's the size of a small island.

[Hank W.]

Well Åland is a "decent" archipelago, innit? BTW Åland is the name of the archipelago, the biggest island is called 'mainland'

[otyikondo]

Well Åland is a "decent" archipelago, innit? BTW Åland is the name of the archipelago, the biggest island is called 'mainland'

All sound stuff, Hank, and now I come to think of it, I probably would say "He lives on Vårdö".

But I didn't think to think that yes, it's called Manner-Ahvenanmaa. Maybe it's the rather lukewarm Swedish that put me off: "Den största ön är fasta Åland vars areal utgör ca 70 procent av
den totala landarealen och på vilken 90 procent av befolkningen är
bosatt."

I think for me it's got something to do with it being one large lump and a few straggly bits, and not a proper smithereens type of archipelago, which is more what you get around Turku.

[Malla]

The restaurant is on the island.

If you use 'in', it seems the restaurant is somehow inside the island.

You can live in Helsinki, cause you are in Helsinki.
But you can't live on Helsinki as that would mean you are on top of it.

That is the way I would say it.

[otyikondo]

The restaurant is on the island.

If you use 'in', it seems the restaurant is somehow inside the island.

You can live in Helsinki, cause you are in Helsinki.
But you can't live on Helsinki as that would mean you are on top of it.

That is the way I would say it.

Malla, the question was not specifically about "in or on the island", it was "in or on Lauttasaari", and since Lauttasaari is seen first and foremost as a residential district and only secondarily in its geographical context as an island, most people familiar with the locale would use "in" - just as they would use "in" for Chelsea, regardless of the fact that actually the name means Chel's Island.

And no, Chelsea has nothing to do with the sea: the -ea suffix is a hangover from Viking/Danelaw influence and is found all over Eastern England in such names as Horningsea, Manea, Shippea Hill, Whittlesey, Swavesey, and even I suspect crops up (though Lord knows why, unless the Danes also trashed Normandy) in the names of the Channel Islands - Jersey, etc. It also appears in the form -eyot (pronounced "ait") in Chiswick Eyot in London.

But anywhoo, the bottom line is that we don't say the restaurant is on Chelsea.

Nor do we say he lives on Stockholm, even if "-holm" is a standard suffix for island.