I have arrived to or in LONDON
Young Learner
I read this morning on CNN:
2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
Since, I wonder if I can say:
They have arrived to USA or at USA
Thanks
--
I am always there if you need a shoulder to cry on
Harry Flashman
"Young Learner" <L...@You.ng> wrote in message
news:45f3ec25$0$6423$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Hi,
> I read this morning on CNN:
> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
>
> Thanks
>
I think CNN and would have said "have returned to the USA".
You would say "I returned to London", but "I arrived in London".
contrex
> Hi,
> I read this morning on CNN:
> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
Your subject line says "I have arrived to or in LONDON", yet here you
mention the USA.
You would say, or write, "they have arrived in the USA".
You would say "I have arrived IN London".
Are you sure CNN said "In USA"? I think they would say in THE USA. The
title of that country is THE United states of America.
Never 'arrived TO'. Never, never, never. Arrived IN a country. Arrived
IN a big city or town. Arrived AT a small village or a precise
location or a building.
We can say that people have arrived in or at a town. "At is a little
old fashioned for towns and villages. You can just use "in" for small
towns and villages if you want. Usually we say "in" for bigger towns
and cities. We always say "in" for suburbs, counties, States,
prefectures, provinces, countries, continents, areas, etc.
I arrived in Bristol (a medium sized town in England).
I stayed in (or at) Exeter (a smaller town).
I arrived in (or at) Pensford (a village).
I arrived at the church at ten o'clock.
I stayed in London.
I arrived in the USA.
I arrived in Europe.
I arrived in France.
I spent the winter in Florida.
I left my suitcase in Germany.
There are many towns in Europe.
I arrived at the north end of the lake.
There are many kangaroos in Australia.
I arrived at my mother's house.
cybercypher
> I read this morning on CNN:
> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
"Therefore", not "since"
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
One can arrive "in", but not "to", the [The article is necessary,
except in headlines] USA or any other country. One can also arrive
"at", but not "to", a place, e.g., an airport, a train station, a bus
depot, etc.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
jinhyun
Doesn't that depend on context? If you're Madonna and are used to
going round the world, anything smaller than a whole country seems to
deserve an 'at'. But if you're an aged mother going to see how your
son is faring in the 'big city' it would be an 'in'. On the other
hand, even if a cricket match were held in a village, it would still
be played 'in' the village.
Peter Moylan
> Hi, I read this morning on CNN: 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>
>
>
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
Sorry, but both of these sound wrong. I would say "They have arrived in
the USA." Actually, since they came from the USA originally, people
would be more likely to say something like "They have arrived back in
the USA."
The word "the" is needed in this case because "the USA" is an
abbreviation of "The United States of America". In effect, "The" is part
of the name of the country. If they had arrived in Canada (for example),
the word "the" would not be necessary in this sentence.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
jinhyun
> Hi,
> I read this morning on CNN:
> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
>
> Thanks
>
2500 US soldiers have returned to the USA.
But if they were foreigners, say, the Beatles, you'd say:
The Beatles have arrived in America.
--
> I am always there if you need a shoulder to cry on
I'm glad you've changed your signature, kid. That's more like it! I
won't call you a kid anymore.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>I arrived in Bristol (a medium sized town in England).
>I stayed in (or at) Exeter (a smaller town).
>I arrived in (or at) Pensford (a village).
>I arrived at the church at ten o'clock.
>I stayed in London.
>I arrived in the USA.
>I arrived in Europe.
>I arrived in France.
>I spent the winter in Florida.
>I left my suitcase in Germany.
>There are many towns in Europe.
>I arrived at the north end of the lake.
>There are many kangaroos in Australia.
>I arrived at my mother's house.
>
Amd did she say "Poor dear, you must be exhausted by now"?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Paul Wolff
>Young Learner <L...@You.ng> wrote
>
>> I read this morning on CNN:
>> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>>
>> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
>"Therefore", not "since"
Maybe, but when I read it I saw an ellipsis, as in 'since then, I have
been wondering if I can say'.
>
>> They have arrived to USA or at USA
>
>One can arrive "in", but not "to", the [The article is necessary,
>except in headlines] USA or any other country. One can also arrive
>"at", but not "to", a place, e.g., an airport, a train station, a bus
>depot, etc.
>
>--
>Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
>Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
>"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
>shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
>http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
>teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
>
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Donna Richoux
> Hi,
> I read this morning on CNN:
> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
Was this one of the rolling headlines at the bottom of the screen?
You're going to find slightly odd English in headlines, whether on TV or
in a newspaper, because they are forced to fit a tight space.
Experienced speakers of English get used to these abbreviations. Don't
trust them when learning English.
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
My own preference would be "They've arrived in the US." Never "arrived
to". I'd have to think why "at" or "in" -- probably, "at" for a point
like a city or military base, but "in" for an region like a country or
state.
As in many languages, each verb works with different prepositions.
Return to, arrive at/in. I don't know if a list will help, but there's
one here:
Common Verbs and Adjectives with Prepositions
http://www.myenglishteacher.net/common_verbs_with_prep.html
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands
Don Phillipson
news:45f3ec25$0$6423$426a...@news.free.fr...
> I read this morning on CNN:
> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>
> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>
> They have arrived to USA or at USA
What you read was a "headline" (look it up)
which for reasons of brevity omits words
required by everyday syntax. The proper
name of the place is "the USA," including
the definite article THE (like some other
place names, e.g. the USSR, the Argentine
Republic:) but headlines often omit words,
cf. also "telegraphese."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
contrex
> Doesn't that depend on context? If you're Madonna and are used to
> going round the world, anything smaller than a whole country seems to
> deserve an 'at'. But if you're an aged mother going to see how your
> son is faring in the 'big city' it would be an 'in'. On the other
> hand, even if a cricket match were held in a village, it would still
> be played 'in' the village.
I don't derive my English usage from Madonna, thanks. Saying "There
are concerts at Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester" might be,
strictly speaking, acceptable English usage, but the sentence would
fall strangely on English ears. Those conurbations cover many square
miles, and "at" is somewhat too precise. No native would ever say "at
London". "There are concerts in Manchester, at the Free Trade Hall, in
Birmingham, at the National Exhibition Centre, and in Liverpool at the
Alhambra Theatre" would be OK.
I live in Bristol. With a population of 400,000, and metropolitan area
of 550,000, it is England's sixth, and the United Kingdom's ninth,
most populous city, one of England's core cities and the most populous
city in South West England. For half a millennium it was the second or
third largest English city, until the rapid rise of Liverpool,
Manchester and Birmingham in the Industrial Revolution of the 1780s. I
have seen "at" Bristol used as late as around 1900. There is a hands-
on science and technology museum-cum-Imax theatre, the successor to
Professor RL Gregory's famous Exploratory, called @Bristol, pronounced
"at Bristol", and listed on Google as "At-Bristol".
Aged mothers would go "to" London from way outside, or "into" London
from a satellite town such as Bromley or Croydon. They might well say
"My son lives at Peckham, in London", or "in London".
As to cricket matches, I can quite easily imagine seeing in the sports
pages of a provincial newspaper that matches were played at (or in)
Church Fenton, Little Copley and Axbridge.
If someone says "I was at Oxford/Cambridge/Durham/London" it's a
pretty fair bet that they mean that they were a student at the
university thus named.
American universities with split campuses are "at" towns, I note.
Young Learner
I apologize for forgetting "THE" USA.
I know the rule about it.
Thanks very much
cybercypher
> cybercypher <dontb...@easypeasy.com> wrote
>>Young Learner <L...@You.ng> wrote
>>
>>> I read this morning on CNN:
>>> 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>>>
>>> Since, I wonder if I can say:
>>
>>"Therefore", not "since"
>
> Maybe, but when I read it I saw an ellipsis, as in 'since then, I
> have been wondering if I can say'.
Maybe for a native anglophone, but not for a native speaker of Chinese,
IMHO.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally
shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
--
jinhyun
> On 11 Mar, 12:15, "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't that depend on context? If you're Madonna and are used to
> > going round the world, anything smaller than a whole country seems to
> > deserve an 'at'. But if you're an aged mother going to see how your
> > son is faring in the 'big city' it would be an 'in'. On the other
> > hand, even if a cricket match were held in a village, it would still
> > be played 'in' the village.
>
> I don't derive my English usage from Madonna, thanks. Saying "There
> are concerts at Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester" might be,
> strictly speaking, acceptable English usage, but the sentence would
> fall strangely on English ears. Those conurbations cover many square
> miles, and "at" is somewhat too precise.
Relatively speaking. It isn't too precise if within the same week
you're doing a gig 'at' Melbourne.
No native would ever say "at
> London". "There are concerts in Manchester, at the Free Trade Hall, in
> Birmingham, at the National Exhibition Centre, and in Liverpool at the
> Alhambra Theatre" would be OK.
I think I see what you're saying, though. Most people don't travel
round the world as Madonna does. To them, London's a pretty big
place.
>
> I live in Bristol. With a population of 400,000, and metropolitan area
> of 550,000, it is England's sixth, and the United Kingdom's ninth,
> most populous city, one of England's core cities and the most populous
> city in South West England. For half a millennium it was the second or
> third largest English city, until the rapid rise of Liverpool,
> Manchester and Birmingham in the Industrial Revolution of the 1780s. I
> have seen "at" Bristol used as late as around 1900. There is a hands-
> on science and technology museum-cum-Imax theatre, the successor to
> Professor RL Gregory's famous Exploratory, called @Bristol, pronounced
> "at Bristol", and listed on Google as "At-Bristol".
>
> Aged mothers would go "to" London from way outside, or "into" London
> from a satellite town such as Bromley or Croydon. They might well say
> "My son lives at Peckham, in London", or "in London".
>
> As to cricket matches, I can quite easily imagine seeing in the sports
> pages of a provincial newspaper that matches were played at (or in)
> Church Fenton, Little Copley and Axbridge.
This is news to me. I'd never seen the town or village in which the
match was held attract an 'at'. Always 'at' for the ground of course,
but (as I presumed from experience) always 'in' for the town or
village. Maybe they meant the grounds in your example. I don't imagine
Little Copley has more than one cricket ground -- and that probably
named the same as the place?
>
> If someone says "I was at Oxford/Cambridge/Durham/London" it's a
> pretty fair bet that they mean that they were a student at the
> university thus named.
There's a London University? I'd never heard of it.
contrex
> >I arrived at my mother's house.
>
> Amd did she say "Poor dear, you must be exhausted by now"?
She said, "I'll put the kettle on".
Harry Flashman
"jinhyun" <jinhyu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>There's a London University? I'd never heard of it.
It's proper name is the University of London. Have you ever heard of the
London School of Economics? That is party of the University of London.
Harry Flashman
"Harry Flashman" <xflash...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:UnTIh.9847$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
jinhyun
wrote:
> "Harry Flashman" <xflashdavi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:UnTIh.9847$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > <snip>
>
> >>There's a London University? I'd never heard of it.
>
> > It's proper name is the University of London. Have you ever heard of the
> > London School of Economics?
All the time! I've a couple of lousy know-it-all cousins who graduated
from there. My parents'll never let me hear the end of it.
That is party of the University of London.
>
> oops I mean, part of the University of London, not party.
Okay, thanks.[under my breath: Lousy know-it-all native speaker!]
Jeffrey Turner
> On 11 Mar, 11:48, Young Learner <L...@You.ng> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>I read this morning on CNN:
>>2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
>>
>>Since, I wonder if I can say:
>>
>>They have arrived to USA or at USA
>
>
> Your subject line says "I have arrived to or in LONDON", yet here you
> mention the USA.
>
> You would say, or write, "they have arrived in the USA".
> You would say "I have arrived IN London".
>
> Are you sure CNN said "In USA"? I think they would say in THE USA. The
> title of that country is THE United states of America.
"In USA" (or "to USA") sounds like headline-ese; they may just have been
reading their own headlines.
--Jeff
--
The most extravagant idea that can arise
in a politician's head is to believe that
it is enough for a people to invade a
foreign county to make it adopt their laws
and their constitution. No one loves armed
missionaries... --Robespierre
contrex
> I think I see what you're saying, though. Most people don't travel
> round the world as Madonna does. To them, London's a pretty big
> place.
Why this preoccupation with that stupid broad? Who cares what she
might or might not say? Not me!
> This is news to me. I'd never seen the town or village in which the
> match was held attract an 'at'. Always 'at' for the ground of course,
> but (as I presumed from experience) always 'in' for the town or
> village. Maybe they meant the grounds in your example.
Well, 'they' is me, because I made it up from my huge experience of
reading English local newspapers.
> > If someone says "I was at Oxford/Cambridge/Durham/London" it's a
> > pretty fair bet that they mean that they were a student at the
> > university thus named.
>
> There's a London University? I'd never heard of it.
Oh right. But you tell Brits when to use 'at'? The School of Oriental
and African Studies at UCL says:
"With growing numbers of students and PhD candidates in Korean studies
and studies related to Korea (also outside SOAS in other colleges of
London University), the Centre OF Korean Studies has become a forum
where research in progress can be presented and discussed in front of
an informed audience."
contrex
> "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I see you didn't go there! At least not to the Centre For Apostrophe
Studies. Or if you did, you were too busy partying.
jinhyun
>
> > There's a London University? I'd never heard of it.
>
> Oh right. But you tell Brits when to use 'at'?
I didn't know that there was a obligation to have heard of London
University to have an opinion -- or in this case, merely a query --
about English. London University may not exist tomorrow -- for various
reasons -- but English and English speakers across the globe still
will.
The School of Oriental
> and African Studies at UCL says:
>
> "With growing numbers of students and PhD candidates in Korean studies
> and studies related to Korea (also outside SOAS in other colleges of
> London University), the Centre OF Korean Studies has become a forum
> where research in progress can be presented and discussed in front of
> an informed audience."
With great difficulty, I managed to locate 'London University' in the
above long, pointless and obscure paragraph. If all references to
London university lie in such paragraphs, small wonder that I hadn't
heard of it before. Indeed I wonder how anyone managed to hear of it.
contrex
[self-justifying stuff]
Jinhyun, stop digging! You're heading for my KF at a rate of knots...
M. J. Powell
jinhyun <jinhyu...@gmail.com> writes
I'd heard from it in 1955 when I graduated there.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Matthew Huntbach
It's formally a federation of several of the big London higher education
institutions, but in practice they now function almost independently.
Some of the more well-known of these institutions, led by Imperial
College, are itching to ditch it altogether (Imperial has now made
definite plans to become fully independent), while the less well-known
ones (such as Queen Mary, where I work) and smaller ones still feel there is
some prestige or use in being associated with the "University of London".
But it doesn't really mean anything, and you're right to query it.
No-one would really say "I was at London" meaning the University, because
there's isn't such a thing really to be at, they'd name the individual
college; if they just say "London" it probably means they don't want to
admit they weren't at the LSE or Imperial or UCL.
Matthew Huntbach
K. Edgcombe
jinhyun <jinhyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As to cricket matches, I can quite easily imagine seeing in the sports
>> pages of a provincial newspaper that matches were played at (or in)
>> Church Fenton, Little Copley and Axbridge.
>
>This is news to me. I'd never seen the town or village in which the
>match was held attract an 'at'. Always 'at' for the ground of course,
>but (as I presumed from experience) always 'in' for the town or
>village. Maybe they meant the grounds in your example. I don't imagine
>Little Copley has more than one cricket ground -- and that probably
>named the same as the place?
Yes; I think the "at" works where it is quite obvious what the actual location
within the village is, because there's only one of it.
For instance, in talking about church services, I would naturally say "there's
Evensong at Dry Drayton on Sunday", but if the service were in Cambridge I
would have to say "in Cambridge" or "at St Columba's".
Katy
John Holmes
> On Mar 11, 5:51 pm, "contrex" <mike.j.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't derive my English usage from Madonna, thanks. Saying "There
>> are concerts at Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester" might be,
>> strictly speaking, acceptable English usage, but the sentence would
>> fall strangely on English ears. Those conurbations cover many square
>> miles, and "at" is somewhat too precise.
>
> Relatively speaking. It isn't too precise if within the same week
> you're doing a gig 'at' Melbourne.
No, it would be 'in Melbourne'.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Peacenik
news:45f3f3b0$0$9772$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Young Learner wrote:
> > Hi, I read this morning on CNN: 2500 US soldiers have returned to USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Since, I wonder if I can say:
> >
> > They have arrived to USA or at USA
>
> Sorry, but both of these sound wrong. I would say "They have arrived in
> the USA." Actually, since they came from the USA originally, people
> would be more likely to say something like "They have arrived back in
> the USA."
>
> The word "the" is needed in this case because "the USA" is an
> abbreviation of "The United States of America". In effect, "The" is part
> of the name of the country. If they had arrived in Canada (for example),
> the word "the" would not be necessary in this sentence.
No article:
Canada
France
Japan
Taiwan
Indonesia
(and many more)
Article:
the USA
the UK
the Philippines
the Maldives
the Marshall Islands
(and many more)
Article by convention but not officially sanctioned:
(the) Sudan
(the) Ukraine
No article by convention, but article officially required:
The Gambia
Mike M
>
> If someone says "I was at Oxford/Cambridge/Durham/London" it's a
> pretty fair bet that they mean that they were a student at the
> university thus named.
>
And this explains the naming of the classic album "The Who Live At
Leeds". The implicit full title is "The Who Live At Leeds
University" (which is "in" Leeds).
If you were a band planning a tour, doing gigs at various halls,
theatres, colleges, etc., you might say:
"We're doing a UK tour; we'll be playing in Manchester, Birmingham and
Glasgow".
But compare:
"We're doing a tour of UK universities; we'll be playing at
Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow".
In each case, you *could* leave both out "in" and "at" entirely, and
retain the sense.
Mike M
CDB
[...]
>
> And this explains the naming of the classic album "The Who Live At
> Leeds". The implicit full title is "The Who Live At Leeds
> University" (which is "in" Leeds).
Disambiguation still sorely needed here. May I suggest a
distinguishment between "livv" and "loive"? I suppose commas might do
in (at?) a pinch, though: The Who, L(o)ive, at Leeds.
[...]
Mike Lyle
Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the Students' Union
Entsperson at the time) was the latest guest on Desert Island Discs.
Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
I always want the host to ask people "Do you really not like classical
music?" He rejected the proferred Bible and Shakespeare, too: I don't
mind it when they make such a statement, but a statement it surely is,
so I think we should hear the reasons.
--
Mike.
the Omrud
> CDB wrote:
> > Mike M wrote:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> And this explains the naming of the classic album "The Who Live At
> >> Leeds". The implicit full title is "The Who Live At Leeds
> >> University" (which is "in" Leeds).
> >
> > Disambiguation still sorely needed here. May I suggest a
> > distinguishment between "livv" and "loive"? I suppose commas might do
> > in (at?) a pinch, though: The Who, L(o)ive, at Leeds.
>
> Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the Students' Union
> Entsperson at the time) was the latest guest on Desert Island Discs.
> Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
Nope. The Beeb has been in negotiation with the estate of Roy
Plumley for many years, but they can't get permission to put DID on
Listen again.
--
David
=====
Mike Lyle
> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it:
[...]
>> Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the [Leeds]
Students'
>> Union Entsperson at the time) was the latest guest on Desert Island
>> Discs. Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
>
> Nope. The Beeb has been in negotiation with the estate of Roy
> Plumley for many years, but they can't get permission to put DID on
> Listen again.
Good heavens! I daresay there are ins and outs, but that sounds crazily,
self-defeatingly, petty.
contrex
wrote:
> > Nope. The Beeb has been in negotiation with the estate of Roy
> > Plumley for many years, but they can't get permission to put DID on
> > Listen again.
>
Maybe if they asked the estate of Roy Plomley they might have better
luck?
Mike Lyle
Sue Laughley tried that.
Paul Wolff
off), I've never quite understood the rationale behind this sort of
control of unscripted programme structures. There is surely no
copyright. Possibly the original contract between Roy Plomley and the
Beeb vested the goodwill in Plomley, despite the Beeb's role as
broadcaster and the public face of the programme. And some bright spark
might have registered the TM.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
the Omrud
Wood Avens
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>the Omrud wrote:
>> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it:
>[...]
>>> Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the [Leeds]
>Students'
>>> Union Entsperson at the time) was the latest guest on Desert Island
>>> Discs. Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
>>
>> Nope. The Beeb has been in negotiation with the estate of Roy
>> Plumley for many years, but they can't get permission to put DID on
>> Listen again.
>
>Good heavens! I daresay there are ins and outs, but that sounds crazily,
>self-defeatingly, petty.
I thought it was to do with copyright clearance for the eight pieces
of music. Well, I live and learn.
Anyway, it's repeated on Friday morning at 9 ack emma GMT, but after
that it's gawn for good. (Or maybe not quite: I expect they actually
store the recordings in the vaults of the BBC in case times - or
contracts - change.)
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:02:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >the Omrud wrote:
> >> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it:
> >[...]
> >>> Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the [Leeds]
> >Students'
> >>> Union Entsperson at the time) was the latest guest on Desert Island
> >>> Discs. Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
> >>
> >> Nope. The Beeb has been in negotiation with the estate of Roy
> >> Plumley for many years, but they can't get permission to put DID on
> >> Listen again.
> >
> >Good heavens! I daresay there are ins and outs, but that sounds crazily,
> >self-defeatingly, petty.
>
> I thought it was to do with copyright clearance for the eight pieces
> of music. Well, I live and learn.
If that were the case, there would be little or no Listen Again on
Radio 3.
> Anyway, it's repeated on Friday morning at 9 ack emma GMT, but after
> that it's gawn for good. (Or maybe not quite: I expect they actually
> store the recordings in the vaults of the BBC in case times - or
> contracts - change.)
They do sometimes repeat recent programmes between series, and they
bring out individuals for significant events, such as when they die.
--
David
=====
Don Aitken
Anybody who shares Andy's taste in music should be listening to Radio
3 now; he's doing an hour and three quarters of records that got
eliminated.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Wood Avens
wrote:
>wood...@askjennison.com had it:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:02:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >the Omrud wrote:
>> >> Nope. The Beeb has been in negotiation with the estate of Roy
>> >> Plumley for many years, but they can't get permission to put DID on
>> >> Listen again.
>> >
>> >Good heavens! I daresay there are ins and outs, but that sounds crazily,
>> >self-defeatingly, petty.
>>
>> I thought it was to do with copyright clearance for the eight pieces
>> of music. Well, I live and learn.
>
>If that were the case, there would be little or no Listen Again on
>Radio 3.
No, indeed, I see that. I was obviously misled by the statement on
the DID web-page which says "For rights reasons Desert Island Discs is
not available as a listen again item." I hadn't grasped that it was
merely Plomley's rights.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>
>Anybody who shares Andy's taste in music should be listening to Radio
>3 now; he's doing an hour and three quarters of records that got
>eliminated.
Damn, too late. And of course that's not available on Listen Again
either.
the Omrud
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:34:14 +0000, Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Anybody who shares Andy's taste in music should be listening to Radio
> >3 now; he's doing an hour and three quarters of records that got
> >eliminated.
>
> Damn, too late. And of course that's not available on Listen Again
> either.
Oh yes it is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio3.shtml
Click on Andy Kershaw.
--
David
=====
Wood Avens
wrote:
>wood...@askjennison.com had it:
Terrific! Thanks. (I can't have been looking in the right place.)
Django Cat
> On Mar 11, 5:51 pm, "contrex" <mike.j.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11 Mar, 12:15, "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Doesn't that depend on context? If you're Madonna and are used to
> > > going round the world, anything smaller than a whole country seems to
> > > deserve an 'at'. But if you're an aged mother going to see how your
> > > son is faring in the 'big city' it would be an 'in'. On the other
> > > hand, even if a cricket match were held in a village, it would still
> > > be played 'in' the village.
>
> > I don't derive my English usage from Madonna, thanks. Saying "There
> > are concerts at Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester" might be,
> > strictly speaking, acceptable English usage, but the sentence would
> > fall strangely on English ears. Those conurbations cover many square
> > miles, and "at" is somewhat too precise.
>
> Relatively speaking. It isn't too precise if within the same week
> you're doing a gig 'at' Melbourne.
>
>
> > London". "There are concerts in Manchester, at the Free Trade Hall,
Especially since the Free Trade Hall's been closed these last ten
years.
DC
Django Cat
wrote:
> CDB wrote:
> > Mike M wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >> And this explains the naming of the classic album "The Who Live At
> >> Leeds". The implicit full title is "The Who Live At Leeds
> >> University" (which is "in" Leeds).
>
> > Disambiguation still sorely needed here. May I suggest a
> > distinguishment between "livv" and "loive"? I suppose commas might do
> > in (at?) a pinch, though: The Who, L(o)ive, at Leeds.
>
> Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the Students' Union
> Entsperson at the time)
Not given that AK said he went to Leeds in 78 (making him the same
college intake year as me) and I well remember listening to the WLAL
in early Secondary School... 'ang about.... yup, released 1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_at_Leeds
> was the latest guest on Desert Island Discs.
> Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
>
> I always want the host to ask people "Do you really not like classical
> music?"
I suppose it's all perspective, though personally I'd want a selection
of as many genres as possible. When you get classical-only people
(which is pretty often) I always want the presenter to say "do you
really think three Bartok trios, two Mahler Symphonies, some obscure
lieder and a little late Berlioz is going to cheer you up when you
come to the bit where you have to do your own dentistry or your only
friend - a painted baseball - drifts off out to sea?" Anyway, I've
always thought it's a darn con that you can get a complete symphony on
DID (maybe 40 minutes) for the same price as 3 odd minutes of Johnny B
Goode. I know what, *I'd* want on a desert island, but TYG.
What was refreshing was that as a guest AK had, for once, actually
given some thought to the music he wanted to take. Increasingly, DID
guests seem to be blissfully unaware of the actual pretext of the
programme, and treat it like just another chat show, with a bit of odd
music thrown in. Sunday lunchtimes Chez Cat are regularly punctuated
with screams of "Ferchristsake!!! Do you really want one of only eight
pieces of music you may ever listen to again to be Rex Harrison or
Nellie the Elephant? ARRRRGH!!!". (We feel strongly about our R4).
>He rejected the proferred Bible and Shakespeare, too: I don't
> mind it when they make such a statement, but a statement it surely is,
> so I think we should hear the reasons.
But he did choose an unlimited supply of bog roll as his luxury, which
has to be sound.
DC
Mike M
wrote:
>
> Which reminds me that Andy Kershaw (who was likely the Students' Union
> Entsperson at the time) was the latest guest on Desert Island Discs.
> Radio 4's "Listen Again" click will presumably bring it up.
>
> I always want the host to ask people "Do you really not like classical
> music?" He rejected the proferred Bible and Shakespeare, too: I don't
> mind it when they make such a statement, but a statement it surely is,
> so I think we should hear the reasons.
>
I don't quite understand why anyone should need to ask that question,
any more than "Do you really not like jazz?" or Gregorian chant, or
Tibetan nose-flute music.
Millions of people clearly have no interest whatsoever in classical
music, just as many do not like pop/rock. Me, I like both - so much so
that I'd have trouble finding a balance were I ever famous enough to
be on DID. I'd be tempted to choose a "classical eight" and a "pop
eight" and then toss a coin for which set to use.
Same for the books - he didn't want them because he's not interested
in reading them. Seems reasonable to me.
BTW, vis-a-vis "The Who Live At Leeds" - as mentioned downthread, AK
was eight years too late to have promoted the original 1970 concert -
but he *did* promote the "re-run" in 2006.
Mike M
Mike Lyle
"Mike M" <mikm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173797516....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...[...]
> > I always want the host to ask people "Do you really not like
classical
> > music?" He rejected the proferred Bible and Shakespeare, too: I
don't
> > mind it when they make such a statement, but a statement it surely
is,
> > so I think we should hear the reasons.
> >
>
> I don't quite understand why anyone should need to ask that question,
> any more than "Do you really not like jazz?" or Gregorian chant, or
> Tibetan nose-flute music.
>
> Millions of people clearly have no interest whatsoever in classical
> music, just as many do not like pop/rock. Me, I like both - so much so
> that I'd have trouble finding a balance were I ever famous enough to
> be on DID. I'd be tempted to choose a "classical eight" and a "pop
> eight" and then toss a coin for which set to use.
I'm not knocking other genres, but I'm conscious that for DID we're
theoretically discussing stuff we could -- perhaps -- bear to listen to
again and again for the rest of our natural. I'm not convinced that much
music outside the so-called "classical" repertoire has the necessary
depth.
As DC says, if the music isn't central, there's no point in the
programme format: I'd rather have a plain in-depth "my life and times"
interview instead.
>
> Same for the books - he didn't want them because he's not interested
> in reading them. Seems reasonable to me.
Again, the premise is that you're stuck with them indefintitely.
Refusing them isn't just not being interested: it's a positive public
decision that you'd rather go without books altogether, bar your single
free choice, than have Shakespeare and the Bible to hand. That's a
literary judgement of a strength even F.R.Leavis or Harold Bloom might
shrink from making. The Bible is often overestimated as literature, and
a castaway may have conscientious objections to it; but the same can't
be said of Shakespeare.
[...]
Mike M
wrote:
> "Mike M" <mikmoo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
OK, I take your point, but I think your premise - that the guest is
choosing records to *literally* listen to over and over in an
indefinite solitary confinement - is debatable. Sure, it's not *just*
a "life and times" chat, but surely the point of the records is to
illustrate particular memories and landmarks in their lives, rather
than a selection of the "most repeatable listens" ?
Mike M
Mike Lyle
[...]
> OK, I take your point, but I think your premise - that the guest is
> choosing records to *literally* listen to over and over in an
> indefinite solitary confinement - is debatable. Sure, it's not *just*
> a "life and times" chat, but surely the point of the records is to
> illustrate particular memories and landmarks in their lives, rather
> than a selection of the "most repeatable listens" ?
It can be played either way, of course; and most people would, I
suppose, have very different lists for the two purposes. I'm probably
saying no more than that I'm personally more interested in the "most
repeatable listens" concept than in the "landmarks" one; but perhaps
only a minority of castaways care enough about music for that. Not
surprising, then, that I prefer _Private Passions_ over on 3.
Wood Avens
It occurs to me, though, that when I've thought about my own desert
island list (as haven't we all) I've also included a third category,
"things I couldn't bear never to hear again". And I'm not sure I'd
take any "landmarks" unless they also came into either that or the
"most repeatable" category.
Peter Moylan
> BTW, vis-a-vis "The Who Live At Leeds" - as mentioned downthread, AK
> was eight years too late to have promoted the original 1970 concert -
> but he *did* promote the "re-run" in 2006.
I must have hit that title at least a dozen times in this thread, but my
mind's ear still insists on hearing it as "They Who Live at Leeds".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Mike M
wrote:
> "Mike M" <mikmoo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Well it might be that they *do* care about music, but they are still
working on the "landmarks" assumption. And, to be honest, I'm not sure
that *any* eight records, no matter how "timeless" wouldn't drive you
crazy if that's all you had to listen to.
That's what makes it easy for the non-music lovers - they probably
only listen to records very occasionally, anyway.
I must admit, I like to play the game of guessing which category the
guest falls into. The most extreme example I can remember was David
Steele (former LibDem leader), who more or less admitted that he never
listened to music. His choices were along the lines of:
"Well, I'm Scottish, so I suppose I'd better have some bagpipe music -
er... Mull Of Kinytyre"
"The Beatles were famous, and everybody picks them, so, er...
Yesterday"
"My son like Bob Marley and told me I've got to play this..."
"My wife says she likes this one...."
"One of my colleagues says I should choose this..."
etc., etc. Painful.
Mike M