View Full Version : English Grammar Question
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 14:18
Hi all,
my girlfriend is an English Secondary Language Teacher.
Her native language is German.
Recently the question came up in one of her classes whether
it is possible to say "by feet" as well as "on foot".
Examples: "Most students arrive on the campus by feet or car." or "You can go there on foot"
The two of us have the feeling that "on foot" is far often used
but that "by feet" is not completely wrong either. Perhaps outdated.
I know we have a lot of native speakers here as well as teachers (Papewaio?),
so if anyone could clarify this and perhaps give a few examples, it would be very much appreciated.
:bow:
R'as
It is just a feeling, but 'by feet' sounds more apropiate in past time form. Like 'we went there by feet' or 'You can go there on foot'
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 14:40
Fragony,
I can relate to that feeling, somehow.
But it would make an odd rule, don't you think?
R'as
Fragony,
I can relate to that feeling, somehow.
But it would make an odd rule, don't you think?
R'as
Yes but english are odd people ~;)
I don't know, but 'by' and 'on' have a difference I cannot really comprehend, maybe not present/past per se but 'to do' and 'have done'? English is a very easy language untill you think of the subtleties, that's for sure.
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 15:04
~D Right, they are.
I thought about an "active"/"passive" difference.
active: I can go there on foot
passive: People come here by feet.
~:confused: I'm still puzzled.
R'as
King Edward
04-26-2005, 15:04
Our language is a mess :dizzy2: but I'm pretty sure that you say by foot rather than on feet.
Most students arrive on the campus on foot or by car.
That would be the correct way of saying it I think
~:cheers:
Mouzafphaerre
04-26-2005, 15:09
-
I've never heard or seen by feet; neither of my bigg-αß dictionaries (Collins Cobuild and Grolier Webster) include it either, while both of them have on foot.
-
-
I've never heard or seen by feet; neither of my bigg-αß dictionaries (Collins Cobuild and Grolier Webster) include it either, while both of them have on foot.
-
You are right. It is 'by foot' and 'on foot'. It does implicate a difference. I think I am close with the 'to do' and 'have done', but it is just a hunch.
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 15:16
King Edward,
so can you rule out "by feet" generally?
Mouza,
me and my gf have about a dozen dictionaries at home.
One or two include "by feet", the others don't mention it.
However, some pupils brought their dictionaries which included "by feet".
Thanks so far but there has to be a rule for it.
R'as
King Edward
04-26-2005, 15:16
I'm glad im English and its my first language, as I would hate to have to learn it again!!!!!!
R'as Yes by feet is incorrect as was stated above it would be on foot. you could also use by foot.
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 15:19
I'm glad im English and its my first language, as I would hate to have to learn it again!!!!!!
How's your German? ~D
I heard it must be the strongest pain in the back to learn it?
Don't try if you don't have to......
King Edward
04-26-2005, 15:20
The only thing I can say in German would be censored by our mods rather quickly ~:)
I'm glad im English and its my first language, as I would hate to have to learn it again!!!!!!
Actually english is one of the easiest languages to learn, because it's logic is very consistent.
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 15:22
R'as Yes by feet is incorrect as was stated above it would be on foot. you could also use by foot.
Okay,
so on foot or by foot
but never feet in any combination?
It sounds reasonable.
Now it would be nice to have someone explain it. ~;)
King Edward
04-26-2005, 15:27
Actually english is one of the easiest languages to learn, because it's logic is very consistent.
I got told it wasn't easy because of our inconsistant grammar, and also many words with multiple meanings ie for & four, their and there. mean for example has at least 3 meanings!
(There are many more but my minds drawing blanks at the moment.)
But I'm no language expert infact I'm terrible at other languages, Luckly my girlfriend can speak English and French as well as passable Itailan, German, Mandarin and Russian!
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 15:30
I got told it wasn't easy because of our inconsistant grammar, and also many words with multiple meanings ie for & four, their and there. mean for example has at least 3 meanings!
We call them "false friends" because they sound alike but are written differently and differ in meaning.
In contrast to French it's quite easy. Latin was the horror.
I got told it wasn't easy because of our inconsistant grammar, and also many words with multiple meanings ie for & four, their and there. mean for example has at least 3 meanings!
(There are many more but my minds drawing blanks at the moment.)
But I'm no language expert infact I'm terrible at other languages, Luckly my girlfriend can speak English and French as well as passable Itailan, German, Mandarin and Russian!
Not at all, english is a very logical language with perhaps a few oddities, why do you think people from all over the world learn it so easily? Try dutch, I don't think anyone can really master it unless he/she speaks it from childhood. So many little crazy things that you just have to know.
The Stranger
04-26-2005, 15:36
what about german/deutsch now that language is weird or they way french people count
i mean 4 times 20 plus 8 = 88 c'mon are you stupid
King Edward
04-26-2005, 15:39
I am trying to explain how the rule works but to be honest every time i think i have it worked out i think of an exception.
One a was thinking of was that you could make something by hand, or you could make it with your own hands. It just seems to depend on how you construct your phrase.
He he im confusing myself now and this is supposed to be my first language!!!
Adrian II
04-26-2005, 16:05
what about german/deutsch now that language is weird or they way french people count
i mean 4 times 20 plus 8 = 88 c'mon are you stupidAinuntaggentich (that's Rotterdamish).
And Frag, I love it when you get it all wrong, then go on to say English is such a logical language, and finally take it all back because you get, um, cold foots?
~D
Sjakihata
04-26-2005, 16:15
lol imo english isnt logical at all, on the other hand, german is.
Adrian II
04-26-2005, 16:23
lol imo english isnt logical at all, on the other hand, german is.Nah logo, det hat uns noch keener abjestritte!
cold foots?
~D
I shall not bite ~D
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 16:35
I googled the term "by feet" and found some examples.
It seems that non-native sites (Greek, Italian, German, Arab....)
like to use this expression. You cannot find that much English sites, though.
Two English examples:
Uni of Minnesota (http://www.gen.umn.edu/programs/ce/images/2002_edison_newsletter.pdf)
I think the best transportation on campus is by feet or bus.
Uni. of Manchester (http://www.saltatours.co.uk/manchester.html)
BY FEET OR TRAM Unlike many major cities of the world, Manchester city centre is surprisingly accessible by foot.
Is it possibly an error of translation?
Perhaps it's connected to Latin "per pedes"?
R'as
Duke Malcolm
04-26-2005, 16:39
It should be "by foot". When talking about transport, the method of travel is always singular.
R'as al Ghul
04-26-2005, 16:50
It should be "by foot". When talking about transport, the method of travel is always singular.
Aha, this sounds like a good rule ... and strangely familiar.
What do you say to the above examples I found on the web?
R'as
Duke Malcolm
04-26-2005, 17:06
Mistakes, probably. They are also by Americans and Mancs, which are hardly the best examples, I must say.
If you use plural instead of singular, it most likely refers to multiple journeys. But in this case it should be "on" instead of "by".
"I go around the city on trams"
instead of
"I go around the city by trams"
Unless it is in the third person, when "on" or "by" can be used.
"They go around the city by trams"
or
"They go around the city on trams"
Also, "get" is more grammatically correct when using "by".
"Feet" is always wrong, no matter what else is plural in the phrase.
Hmm... I think that there are a few too many rules in the English language...
The one I said earlier is not usually incorrect, so just use that one, I say.
Mouzafphaerre
04-26-2005, 17:20
-
How's your German? ~D
I heard it must be the strongest pain in the back to learn it?
Don't try if you don't have to......
Not at all! Learning German was pretty easy on top of English training. ~;) The real pain is forgetting it after three years' classes. ~:mecry:
-
Craterus
04-26-2005, 17:35
On foot or by foot.. I wouldn't have been able to tell you why that's what is it though..
Just another part of the quirky English language
~D Right, they are.
I thought about an "active"/"passive" difference.
active: I can go there on foot
passive: People come here by feet.
~:confused: I'm still puzzled.
R'as
Just so you know, "people come here by feet" isn't really passive at all; it's active. "To come" is an intransitive verb and thus can never take the passive voice. A couple passive examples would be:"The people were brought here on foot" or "The people were forced to come by foot" (notice that even when "come" appears, it must be accompanied by a transitive verb).
Okay,
so on foot or by foot
but never feet in any combination?
It sounds reasonable.
Now it would be nice to have someone explain it.
Think of it as an idiomatic expression - it is 'on foot' (a la a pies because that is the expression, like 'Get Bent' would never become 'Get bended' or 'Become Bent'
ichi :bow:
Togakure
04-27-2005, 07:24
Hi all,
... Examples: "Most students arrive on the campus by feet or car." or "You can go there on foot" ...
R'as
"... by foot or by car" would work. I would use: "Most students walk to campus," or "Most student drive to campus," or "most students either walk or drive to campus." While the example you posted is easily understood, it would not often be used here, I think (in the USA).
Togakure
04-27-2005, 07:30
I googled the term "by feet" and found some examples.
It seems that non-native sites (Greek, Italian, German, Arab....)
like to use this expression. You cannot find that much English sites, though.
Two English examples:
Uni of Minnesota (http://www.gen.umn.edu/programs/ce/images/2002_edison_newsletter.pdf)
Uni. of Manchester (http://www.saltatours.co.uk/manchester.html)
Is it possibly an error of translation?
Perhaps it's connected to Latin "per pedes"?
R'as
I have never heard "by feet" used and I'm 42 and have lived in the States almost all of my life. There are many, many people here who technically speak and write English very poorly, so don't be surprised when you find examples like this.
R'as al Ghul
04-27-2005, 12:00
:stunned:
Wow, I didn't expect that many answers to this dry question.
Thanks to all who took the time, it's appreciated very much.
The .org's combined power of knowledge will make it into the classroom.
A few more Germans won't go by feet in the future.
How's that? ~D
~:cheers:
R'as
I got told it wasn't easy because of our inconsistant grammar, and also many words with multiple meanings ie for & four, their and there. mean for example has at least 3 meanings!
I know it's a bit off-topic, but still, it's grammar related.
I must admit that I'm quite astonished by the number of English people who can't make the difference between:
their (possessive) / there (location) / and to a minor extent they're
it's (verb) / its (possessive)
than (comparative) / then (adverb)
Sadly, English native people mix them up so often that many non-native English speakers make these mistakes now.
Fortunately, very few speak French here, therefore you won't notice how terrible the French are at writing in their own language. ~D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.