Reachable on or reachable by?

drop

unread,

Jul 25, 2009, 4:54:01 PM7/25/09

to

Should the sentence read
" I am reachable on my cell phone"
or "I am reachable by my cell phone"
#1 seems right - when do you use #1 and when do you use #2

Thanks,
Meena.

tony cooper

unread,

Jul 25, 2009, 8:59:15 PM7/25/09

to

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT), drop <diu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I am reachable on my cell phone, and that means that I am reachable by
telephone.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Roland Hutchinson

unread,

Jul 25, 2009, 10:01:44 PM7/25/09

to

The idioms are:

"reachable by (cell) phone" or "reachable by telephone"
"reachable on my (cell) phone"

"on" goes with "my".
"by" does not.

--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

tony cooper

unread,

Jul 25, 2009, 10:36:24 PM7/25/09

to

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:01:44 -0400, Roland Hutchinson
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 20:59 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT), drop <diu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Should the sentence read
>> >" I am reachable on my cell phone"
>> >or "I am reachable by my cell phone"
>> >#1 seems right - when do you use #1 and when do you use #2
>> >
>> I am reachable on my cell phone, and that means that I am reachable by
>> telephone.
>
>The idioms are:
>
> "reachable by (cell) phone" or "reachable by telephone"
> "reachable on my (cell) phone"
>
>"on" goes with "my".
>"by" does not.

Isn't that what I said?

Skitt

unread,

Jul 25, 2009, 10:42:48 PM7/25/09

to

tony cooper wrote:
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:

>>> drop wrote:

>>>> Should the sentence read
>>>> " I am reachable on my cell phone"
>>>> or "I am reachable by my cell phone"
>>>> #1 seems right - when do you use #1 and when do you use #2
>>>>
>>> I am reachable on my cell phone, and that means that I am reachable
>>> by telephone.
>>
>> The idioms are:
>>
>> "reachable by (cell) phone" or "reachable by telephone"
>> "reachable on my (cell) phone"
>>
>> "on" goes with "my".
>> "by" does not.
>
> Isn't that what I said?

You had to talk louder -- it was a bad connection.
--
Skitt (AmE)

Roland Hutchinson

unread,

Jul 26, 2009, 7:40:33 AM7/26/09

to

More or less. You omitted "reachable by (cell) phone", which I thought
might be a significant omission to our non-native speaking OP.

Don Phillipson

unread,

Jul 25, 2009, 5:42:53 PM7/25/09

to

"drop" <diu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abbd6952-bf00-40f8...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

A better sentence would be:
You can reach me on my cell phone --
preferable because it is more colloquial
(uses simpler words than "reachable".)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

tony cooper

unread,

Jul 26, 2009, 8:38:59 AM7/26/09

to

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:40:33 -0400, Roland Hutchinson
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 22:36 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:01:44 -0400, Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 20:59 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT), drop <diu...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Should the sentence read
>> >> >" I am reachable on my cell phone"
>> >> >or "I am reachable by my cell phone"
>> >> >#1 seems right - when do you use #1 and when do you use #2
>> >> >
>> >> I am reachable on my cell phone, and that means that I am reachable by
>> >> telephone.
>> >
>> >The idioms are:
>> >
>> > "reachable by (cell) phone" or "reachable by telephone"
>> > "reachable on my (cell) phone"
>> >
>> >"on" goes with "my".
>> >"by" does not.
>>
>> Isn't that what I said?
>
>More or less. You omitted "reachable by (cell) phone", which I thought
>might be a significant omission to our non-native speaking OP.

Is "reachable by cell phone" correct, though? That implies that the
*caller* must use his cell phone to reach me. The caller can use any
telephone device, but I receive the call *on* my cell phone.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Jul 26, 2009, 9:32:58 AM7/26/09

to

Yes, but Roland said it more clearly.

--
athel

Ian Jackson

unread,

Jul 27, 2009, 3:22:47 PM7/27/09

to

In message <7d3488F...@mid.individual.net>, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> writes

>On 2009-07-26 04:36:24 +0200, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:01:44 -0400, Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 20:59 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT), drop <diu...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should the sentence read
>>>>> " I am reachable on my cell phone"
>>>>> or "I am reachable by my cell phone"
>>>>> #1 seems right - when do you use #1 and when do you use #2
>>>>>
>>>> I am reachable on my cell phone, and that means that I am reachable
>>>>

>>>> telephone.
>>> The idioms are:
>>> "reachable by (cell) phone" or "reachable by telephone"
>>> "reachable on my (cell) phone"
>>> "on" goes with "my".
>>> "by" does not.
>> Isn't that what I said?
>
>Yes, but Roland said it more clearly.
>

Indeed. I read what Tony said, and confess that I didn't really
understand why he said it. To explain things fully, it is necessary to
explain that you don't usually say "by my telephone". "By" implies
something general (such as in "by rail", "by car", "by sea", by air"
etc), while "on my phone" is specific (as are "in John's car, "on Fred's
bicycle" etc).
--
Ian

R H Draney

unread,

Jul 27, 2009, 3:48:41 PM7/27/09

to

Ian Jackson filted:

>
>Indeed. I read what Tony said, and confess that I didn't really
>understand why he said it. To explain things fully, it is necessary to
>explain that you don't usually say "by my telephone". "By" implies
>something general (such as in "by rail", "by car", "by sea", by air"
>etc), while "on my phone" is specific (as are "in John's car, "on Fred's
>bicycle" etc).

And yet, I am reachable "on" LinkedIn, YouTube and Chinese Music Blog, while
others are reachable on FaceBook, MySpace and TwitTer....

Whether this discussion is taking place "on" or "in" alt.usage.english has in
the past been a matter of some controversy....r

--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Skitt

unread,

Jul 27, 2009, 4:21:46 PM7/27/09

to

R H Draney wrote:
> Ian Jackson filted:

>> Indeed. I read what Tony said, and confess that I didn't really
>> understand why he said it. To explain things fully, it is necessary
>> to explain that you don't usually say "by my telephone". "By" implies
>> something general (such as in "by rail", "by car", "by sea", by air"
>> etc), while "on my phone" is specific (as are "in John's car, "on
>> Fred's bicycle" etc).
>
> And yet, I am reachable "on" LinkedIn, YouTube and Chinese Music
> Blog, while others are reachable on FaceBook, MySpace and TwitTer....
>
> Whether this discussion is taking place "on" or "in"
> alt.usage.english has in the past been a matter of some
> controversy....r

... and "reachable by phone" is a quite ordinary expression. It's a "my"
that screws things up.
--
Skitt (AmE)

Roland Hutchinson

unread,

Jul 27, 2009, 8:12:40 PM7/27/09

to

On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 12:48 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
> Ian Jackson filted:
> >
> >Indeed. I read what Tony said, and confess that I didn't really
> >understand why he said it. To explain things fully, it is necessary to
> >explain that you don't usually say "by my telephone". "By" implies
> >something general (such as in "by rail", "by car", "by sea", by air"
> >etc), while "on my phone" is specific (as are "in John's car, "on Fred's
> >bicycle" etc).
>
> And yet, I am reachable "on" LinkedIn, YouTube and Chinese Music Blog, while
> others are reachable on FaceBook, MySpace and TwitTer....
>
> Whether this discussion is taking place "on" or "in" alt.usage.english has in
> the past been a matter of some controversy....r

No need for controversy. Prepositions work the same in cyberspace as in
the real world, such as it is: "In" a (news)group. "On" a bulletin
board (which a.u.e ain't).

R H Draney

unread,

Jul 27, 2009, 10:27:09 PM7/27/09

to

Roland Hutchinson filted:

>
>On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 12:48 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Whether this discussion is taking place "on" or "in" alt.usage.english has in
>> the past been a matter of some controversy....r
>
>No need for controversy. Prepositions work the same in cyberspace as in
>the real world, such as it is: "In" a (news)group. "On" a bulletin
>board (which a.u.e ain't).

A message that's "in" alt.usage.english is "on" Usenet (but, for some who might
read it, "in" Google Groups)...if you can formulate a law that accounts for
*that* state of affairs, I'd love to hear it....r

Roland Hutchinson

unread,

Jul 28, 2009, 1:04:51 AM7/28/09

to

On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:27 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
> Roland Hutchinson filted:
> >
> >On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 12:48 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
> >>
> >> Whether this discussion is taking place "on" or "in" alt.usage.english has in
> >> the past been a matter of some controversy....r
> >
> >No need for controversy. Prepositions work the same in cyberspace as in
> >the real world, such as it is: "In" a (news)group. "On" a bulletin
> >board (which a.u.e ain't).
>
> A message that's "in" alt.usage.english is "on" Usenet (but, for some who might
> read it, "in" Google Groups)...if you can formulate a law that accounts for
> *that* state of affairs, I'd love to hear it....r

"In" Brand-X Groups, just like any other group or group of groups.
"On" any communications network (but "in" a network of people)
"In" an particular group.

Works for me in _my_ real world.