 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010I have been in downtown.
1)I have been in downtown. 2)I have been to downtown. Both sentences show that I'm not in downtown now. How different are they in what each means? >1)I have been in downtown. >2)I have been to downtown. > >Both sentences show that I'm not in downtown now. >How different are they in what each means? Neither would be heard in the US. Americans would say "I have been downtown" or "I have been in (or "to") the downtown area".  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >1)I have been in downtown. > >2)I have been to downtown. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Neither would be heard in the US. Americans would say "I have been > downtown" or "I have been in (or "to") the downtown area". Quite so. How about this? I have been in the countryside. I have been to the countryside. How are they different? >> >1)I have been in downtown. >> >2)I have been to downtown. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >How are they different? Different in that they would probably appear in different context. The first would probably be in some context where a prolonged visit to the countryside was being described, and the second indicates only a short visit to the countryside. However, you can't take a single sentence and say that it *always* belongs in this context or that context, or that this or that particular meaning applies. Both sentences could be used in describing either a prolonged visit or a brief visit. One might be more *likely* to be in a particular context, but it's not a clear thing. Sentences like those do not tell you much about context. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > > >1)I have been in downtown. > > >2)I have been to downtown. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How are they different? Good question. As a native speaker of English, I don't know why "downtown" and "the countryside" are treated differently; I just know they are. It's so hard to explain things that have always been taken for granted! >>>> 1)I have been in downtown. 2)I have been to downtown. Both >>>> sentences show that I'm not in downtown now. How different are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's so hard to explain things that have always been taken for > granted! The difference is that "the countryside" is a noun phrase and can quite naturally be governed by a preposition like "in", while "downtown" is an adverb in the sentence "I've been downtown" (like "I've been away"). SignatureJames 1) I have been in the countryside. 2)I have been in the countryside for two months. 2) This means I have lived there since two months ago, and I'm still there, right? but, in 1), I'm not in the countryside now. By the way, about I have been downtown, you couldt distinguish whether I have been (to) downdown, or I have been (in) downtown. How do you tell apart? >1) I have been in the countryside. >2)I have been in the countryside for two months. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >been (in) downtown. >How do you tell apart? Context. I'm sorry to keep using that word, but you seem not to be aware that we can't effectively deal with sentences isolated from their context. "I've been to the downtown area" *usually* means that the person is indicating that he's at least visited the downtown area in question and is familiar with it. "I've been in the downtown area" *usually* means that the person has just returned from that area and is explaining where he's been. But...but...but...but, either interpretation could be the opposite of what I've said based on context. It just isn't going to work if you insist on trying to find specific changes of meaning of a sentence based on changing one word like this. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida James Hogg filted: >>>>> 1)I have been in downtown. 2)I have been to downtown. Both >>>>> sentences show that I'm not in downtown now. How different are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >naturally be governed by a preposition like "in", while "downtown" is an >adverb in the sentence "I've been downtown" (like "I've been away"). I can't rule out the possibility that some city describes a certain district as "Downtown" (like San Diego has "The Gaslamp Quarter" or Scottsdale "The Couplet")...in that case, you might very well hear a resident say either "I've been to Downtown" or "I've been in Downtown"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >I can't rule out the possibility that some city describes a certain district as >"Downtown" Um, Manhattan? Uptown, Midtown, and Downtown, all without a preposition. I don't know about Atlanta, though. Any Atlantans here? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > >I can't rule out the possibility that some city describes a certain district as > >"Downtown" > Um, Manhattan? Uptown, Midtown, and Downtown, all without a > preposition. Midtown without a preposition? I'm going midtown? I've been midtown? I don't think so. When I lived in Houston, where Downtown is in the middle, "in Downtown" or "to Downtown" was common. In Poughkeepsie, too, to some extent, to differentiate Downtown from Lower Main Street farther down. In Kingston, Uptown is very definitely a place and not a direction, Midtown lies above Uptown, and downtown doesn't really mean anything at all. ¬R >>I can't rule out the possibility that some city describes a certain district as >>"Downtown" > >Um, Manhattan? Uptown, Midtown, and Downtown, all without a >preposition. I don't know about Atlanta, though. Any Atlantans here? Even in little old Orlando there's a downtown area. http://downtownorlando.com/ http://orlando.nightguide.com/nl1dt.htm SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. Because we don't have a word equivalent to downtown, while we have one for INNER CITY. But I have rarely come across "inner city". >DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. >Because we don't have a word >equivalent to downtown, while we have one for INNER CITY. >But I have rarely come across "inner city". I don't know what "inner city" connotes in Japan, but in the US it is the part of the city that is the periphery of the downtown area that has fallen into urban decay; the slums in most cities. It's almost a code term for "the area where poor blacks live". Therefore, if - in Japan - the "inner city" is highly urban but a respectable, high-rent area, you would not want to tell an American you live in the inner city. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. > Because we don't have a word > equivalent to downtown, while we have one for INNER CITY. > But I have rarely come across "inner city". "Downtown" is mostly an American English word. You will hear "inner city" in other English-speaking countries. Sometimes we also call it the CBD, which stands for "central business district". In Australia, "I went into town" is one common way of describing a trip to the inner city. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. >> Because we don't have a word >> equivalent to downtown, while we have one for INNER CITY. >> But I have rarely come across "inner city". > > "Downtown" is mostly an American English word. I was going to say this, but you've beaten me to it. In BrE I would say that "uptown" and "midtown" are not used at all, and "downtown" is much less common (and less precise) than it is in AmE. You'd never use it as an adjective in BrE. > You will hear "inner > city" in other English-speaking countries. Sometimes we also call it the > CBD, which stands for "central business district". > > In Australia, "I went into town" is one common way of describing a trip > to the inner city. Signatureathel >>> DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. >>> Because we don't have a word [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less common (and less precise) than it is in AmE. You'd never use it as an > adjective in BrE. Agreed. One might, of course, go down town in colloquial BrE, but it would always be two words. Regards Jonathan On Jan 13, 10:09 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. > >> Because we don't have a word [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less common (and less precise) than it is in AmE. You'd never use it as > an adjective in BrE. Uptown is not particularly common as a location designation in AmE. Downtown is very commonplace, even in relatively small towns. "I'm going downtown" is a normal AmE phrase; I'd have a sense of what it meant in nearly any US town or city. "I'm going uptown" is meaningless, in general, except in a handful of cities that have a region designated by the name "Uptown"--to most people in the US, if you said "I just returned from uptown" the assumption would be that you'd returned from a visit to Upper Manhattan in New York City (unless their town or city had its own "uptown"). As as place designation, it's almost like "Soho"--it's not a well-defined general English word, but if you're in one of many cities such as London, New York, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, or Birmingham that has an area by that name, saying "I'm headed to Soho" makes sense. If not, saying "I'm headed to Soho" means you're taking a trip to London (if you're in the UK) or to New York (if you're in the USA). "Uptown" does have another meaning in AmE, though; it's synonymous with "posh" or "upscale", because by far the most widely recognized "uptown" area in the country is the affluent Upper Manhattan section of New York City. Billy Joel's song "Uptown Girl" is probably partially responsible for popularizing this meaning. As a term indicating location, Wikipedia lists 16 cities with "uptowns" in the United States. That's a very permissive list, though; I've lived for over 6 years in two of the cities that are listed (Pittsburgh and Washington, DC), and even in those cities, I think that without specific context most people would assume anyone using "uptown" was referring to Manhattan. If you said you were headed uptown in Pittsburgh or DC, I'd have only the vaguest idea what you were talking about--it's certainly not a currently used term among the people I know in either city. >> DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. >> Because we don't have a word [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >In Australia, "I went into town" is one common way of describing a trip >to the inner city. For Canberra, we go to "Civic". SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. Richard Bollard filted: >>> DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. >>> Because we don't have a word [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >For Canberra, we go to "Civic". In Phoenix, we go to "Downtown", except that nobody goes there....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >"Downtown" is mostly an American English word. You will hear "inner >city" in other English-speaking countries. "Inner city" usually has a different meaning for Americans: a former business center now in decay, the rough part of town. ¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/hallobob.html Don't never, but never, look inside the Mojo Bag! > DOWNTOWN is not so easy to understand in our way of terminology. > Because we don't have a word > equivalent to downtown, while we have one for INNER CITY. > But I have rarely come across "inner city". Cities in the US are young enough that original settlement patterns still govern modern urban organization and nomenclature. Because there were no roads, early settlements in the US were located on rivers. As a settlement grew into a town and then a city, it tended to expand upriver because the water there had not been fouled by the town and its port. Or, in some places like Boston, expansion was only possible upriver. "Uptown" and "downtown" are relative to flow of the river. The earlier settled part of the city, the downtown, would contain the business and governmental districts, while uptown would be more residential. Many cities that were not located on rivers adopted the "downtown" nomenclature to mean the business district or the older part of the city. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Good question. As a native speaker of English, I don't know why > "downtown" and "the countryside" are treated differently; I just know > they are. And while one would not say "I have been to downtown", "I have been to town" is normal. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email El Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:55:25 -0500, tony cooper escribió: > Neither would be heard in the US. Americans would say "I have been > downtown" or "I have been in (or "to") the downtown area". As a kid, watching the american cops & robbers series, I always thought "downtown" meant the police station. "You're coming downtown" (cop to the robber). SignaturePablo > El Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:55:25 -0500, tony cooper escribió: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "downtown" meant the police station. "You're coming downtown" (cop to the > robber). These very common phrases are, precisely because they are common, usually used without explanation. Why would you feel the need to explain anything in the "everybody knows it" category? This can cause confusion when somebody who doesn't know it arrives on the scene. Allan Sherman's song "Harvey and Sheila" contains the lines Switched to the GOP That's the way things go. to describe what happened as H&S became more prosperous. When I first heard this, I didn't have a clue as to what the GOP might be. I worked it out from context, though. The words "That's the way things go" obviously referred to things flushed out of the house. From this it was clear to me that the GOP was some sort of sewage treatment works. I already knew that Americans had more than one phone company, so it seemed likely that they would also have a choice of which company to connect their toilet pipes to. Looking back at this, I'm starting to wonder whether I was right about the phone companies. The present state of play here is that I'm free to give my business to one of about a hundred phone companies, and this remains true even in small towns. From comments I've read in this newsgroup, I have the impression that small-town Americans have a very limited choice of phone companies, and that some companies might even have a monopoly in some areas. How close am I to the truth? I have to admit that the left-winger in me can accept the notion of a state monopoly - because that's subject to voter control - but is horrified by the thought of a private company monopoly. I suppose, though, that the latter would be more acceptable in an area dominated by right-leaning voters. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> El Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:55:25 -0500, tony cooper escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > acceptable in > an area dominated by right-leaning voters. As for a private company monopoly, back in the late '70s, early '80s, ATT (also called "Ma Bell" for Bell Telephone) was broken up as a result of an anti-trust action. The 5 resulting "Baby Bells" immediately began growing and changing focus. The new ATT is not as big as the fierce monopoly its predecessor once was, but has branched into cell phones, broadband, and television signal distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T Strangely, Verizon apparently came from one of the Baby Bells, too. I did not know that. But I can't recall which Baby Bell ATT (SBC) developed from, much less Verizon's momma. I think that at one time Wisconsin had more telephone companies than had any other state. There are fewer, now, though perhaps after some period of mergers there are more again, though under other names. Century Telephone and Frontier are now interstate companies, originating in the South and the West, and they have gobbled up most (all) of the small companies that served Wisconsin. General Telephone was founded in Wisconsin, and I couldn't tell you whether, after it had expanded, it swallowed up the burgeoning Verizon, or was swallowed up by it. I think the Mount Horeb Telephone Company still exists, though I only recognize it by seeing it as the ISP for some cousins' email addresses. >Looking back at this, I'm starting to wonder whether I was right about >the phone companies. The present state of play here is that I'm free to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >monopoly. I suppose, though, that the latter would be more acceptable in >an area dominated by right-leaning voters. I have never lived in an area where I could subscribe to land-line telephone service from a choice of companies. Some government agency in each of the states I've lived in have awarded franchises to telephone companies for particular geographic territories. The rates are regulated by a state agency. Several years ago, though, we were allowed choices of our long distance provider on land lines. If there is an area around here where more than one telephone company offers service, I would expect it is in the downtown area. The mobile phone situation is different, of course. That's always been based on choice of providers. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >Looking back at this, I'm starting to wonder whether I was right about > >the phone companies. The present state of play here is that I'm free to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in each of the states I've lived in have awarded franchises to > telephone companies for particular geographic territories. I believe the vast majority of the country got landline service from one subsidiary or another of AT&T (the Bell System). For instance, the vast majority of Ohio was served by Ohio Bell. This part of AT&T was broken up geographically into seven "Baby Bells", now reduced by mergers to three, and the vast majority gets landline service from one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company However, the small town where I live has long been served by a non- Bell company, changed by various acquisitions and currently Windstream. > The rates > are regulated by a state agency. Several years ago, though, we were [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The mobile phone situation is different, of course. That's always > been based on choice of providers. And in rural areas, by the providers' choice of what areas to serve. -- Jerry Friedman >I believe the vast majority of the country got landline service from >one subsidiary or another of AT&T (the Bell System). For instance, >the vast majority of Ohio was served by Ohio Bell. This part of AT&T >was broken up geographically into seven "Baby Bells", now reduced by >mergers to three, and the vast majority gets landline service from one >of them. Not so true any more. In some states, the (semi-monopoly) cable companies have a majority of household landlines. (I believe Rhode Island is one; the whole state is Cox.) This is why some telcos, like Verizon, are trying to get out of the traditional landline business. Particularly because more profitable services (that include bundled video and Internet) are unregulated and generally do not carry with them the legal obligation to serve the entire franchise area, unlike traditional POTS lines. If you build a house in a new development in Massachusetts today,[1] it is very likely that traditional POTS would not be available at all -- you'd have the same duopoly providers, but Verizon would only offer FiOS and Comcast would offer the same service it offers everywhere else. There would be no other choices -- it wouldn't be dense enough for RCN to bother serving, and because there would be no copper wires leading direct to a telephone CO, competitive DSL would not be available either. -GAWollman [1] Such things do happen, even here. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.