Arrive at/in/into (pedantry)

[Phil Reynolds]

[...] arriving into Nottingham
[...] arriving to Nottingham

I despair.

[Kirk Bevins]

[...] arriving into Nottingham
[...] arriving to Nottingham

I despair.

Stop despairing and do some work. We all make mistakes, apart from you it seems.

[Phil Reynolds]

[...] arriving into Nottingham
[...] arriving to Nottingham

I despair.

Stop despairing and do some work. We all make mistakes, apart from you it seems.

Despairing is my work. I'm professionally desperate.

I'm guessing that you travel on trains a lot and have picked up "arriving into" from that, since it seems mainly to be train announcers who are spreading this pointless solecism. "This train arrives into Manchester Piccadilly at 09.40"... grrr.

[Kirk Bevins]

I'm guessing that you travel on trains a lot and have picked up "arriving into" from that, since it seems mainly to be train announcers who are spreading this pointless solecism. "This train arrives into Manchester Piccadilly at 09.40"... grrr.

Yes I do. Trains are my life...well...part of my life. What's wrong with saying that? That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

[Phil Reynolds]

That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

Nah, sorry. You arrive at a station or other specific locality; you arrive in a city or country; you can occasionally even arrive on something (e.g. "reporters arrived on the scene"). But never "arrive into".

I think (though please someone correct me if you know better) the problem grammatically is that the word "arrive" means the act of reaching a location. "At the station", "in Paris" etc. all describe locations, so you can arrive there. But "into the station" is a movement towards a location, not a location itself. I haven't phrased this very well but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

[Charlie Reams]

That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

Nah, sorry. You arrive at a station or other specific locality; you arrive in a city or country; you can occasionally even arrive on something (e.g. "reporters arrived on the scene"). But never "arrive into".

I think (though please someone correct me if you know better) the problem grammatically is that the word "arrive" means the act of reaching a location. "At the station", "in Paris" etc. all describe locations, so you can arrive there. But "into the station" is a movement towards a location, not a location itself. I haven't phrased this very well but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

I mainly see that you're insisting on adherence to a fairly pointless set of arbitary rules about which preposition goes where. You can whine all you like but language evolves where it likes.

[Kirk Bevins]

What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

[Jon O'Neill]

What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

I think you may have missed his point.

"Arrive into" sounds horrible. It won't catch on.

[Phil Reynolds]

What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

I think you may have missed his point.

"Arrive into" sounds horrible. It won't catch on.

Quite. I should have just said what I meant in the first place instead of trying to justify it by reference to some vague grammatical imperative that I invented on the spot.

[Daniel O'Dowd]

That's perfectly fine to arrive into a railway station.

Nah, sorry. You arrive at a station or other specific locality; you arrive in a city or country; you can occasionally even arrive on something (e.g. "reporters arrived on the scene"). But never "arrive into".

I think (though please someone correct me if you know better) the problem grammatically is that the word "arrive" means the act of reaching a location. "At the station", "in Paris" etc. all describe locations, so you can arrive there. But "into the station" is a movement towards a location, not a location itself. I haven't phrased this very well but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

My two cents is that you CAN arrive in a station; I appreciate it sounds odd without explanation, but in and at are mostly interchangeable (though your latter city/country example is an exception). I would for example arrive in a train station, if it were an enclosed space. That may be pedantic, but such is grammar. I derive my point also partly from knowledge of Russian; it's often the case that native Russian speakers (or those of other Slavic and Baltic languages for that matter) will confuse the use of in/at in English because the use of these with v/na, the locative case, in their native language, can be different. Na tends to function as into does in English, hence this problem and the extra point you raise with movement towards a location.

You can either arrive, such that conceptually you aren't there but in the next discrete moment you are, or you can be arriving, when you really could say into because the movement is continuous (and gramatically gerundive).

Again this comes down to the finer points of how you get somewhere, and I haven't got my grammar books to hand, but if anyone wants I can dig them out and delve deeper into it all (or should I delve deeper at it all ;P) later.

[Phil Reynolds]

My two cents is that you CAN arrive in a station

Oh yes, absolutely, I have no problem with that in the right context. My gripe is solely with "arrive into", which sounds horrible and is grammatically wrong.

[Dinos Sfyris]

Reminds me of the faux pas I made in Paris when asking where to get on the bus which I translated literally as "sur le bus" and the wonderful moustachioed Frenchman corrected me as I should have said "dans le bus". Dans meaning "in". "In the bus?" A lovely little interlingual quirk I thought. Come to think of I think he said his name was Phillippe Renaud...

[Phil Reynolds]

You need to get out more.

Remind us again how you got to be so good at Countdown...

[Gavin Chipper]

I mainly see that you're insisting on adherence to a fairly pointless set of arbitary rules about which preposition goes where. You can whine all you like but language evolves where it likes.

Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

[John Bosley]

What? Are you insane? I arrive into Cardiff means I arrive at Cardiff/arriving in Cardiff.

You need to get out more.

Kirk,
You did say earlier that everyone makes mistakes; but now it seems that you are saying it was not a mistake but that 'arriving into' is all right. I say it is isn't. You could arrive 'at' a gate. You arrive 'at' a gate 'in' a temper or 'in' a wheelbarrow. I really do not know what I am talking about. I perhaps should be put 'into' a straitjacket or 'in' or 'away with' a straitjacket 'on'.

[Neil Zussman]

Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

[Adam Dexter]

Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Neither; it would arrive through your letterbox.

[Kirk Bevins]

Ha, just travelled home by train for CONOT and the announcer told us we were arriving into York. I chuckled to myself. It sounds fine so leave it be. It's right as far as I'm concerned.

[Charlie Reams]

I mainly see that you're insisting on adherence to a fairly pointless set of arbitary rules about which preposition goes where. You can whine all you like but language evolves where it likes.

Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

Yep. Anything where the confusion makes things unclear (using "deduct" for "deduce") or destroys useful distinctions ("imply" vs "infer") is worth objecting to. Saying "arrive into" doesn't cause either of these problems unless you're deliberately seeking to be confused, so there's no point fighting it; and, like the utterly pointless and unmotivated war on trailing prepositions, it won't make any difference if you do.

[Phil Reynolds]

Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Ah.

[Jeff Clayton]

"Arrive into" is an expression not unheard of in bus and coach circles, though not used so widely since on-board announcements are unusual.

But this leads to me an interesting counter-argument for trains. Whilst staff making announcements on the likes of East Midlands Trains, NX East Coast, Virgin Pendolinos etc do sometimes use "arriving into", I can't recall hearing it on any trains with automated equipment - I think it's "at" on NX East Anglia's 360s and on TransPennine's 185s, whilst c2c's 357s go for a more simple "the next station is...".

Can anyone confirm / elaborate?


Jeff

[Kirk Bevins]

"Arrive into" is an expression not unheard of in bus and coach circles, though not used so widely since on-board announcements are unusual.

But this leads to me an interesting counter-argument for trains. Whilst staff making announcements on the likes of East Midlands Trains, NX East Coast, Virgin Pendolinos etc do sometimes use "arriving into", I can't recall hearing it on any trains with automated equipment - I think it's "at" on NX East Anglia's 360s and on TransPennine's 185s, whilst c2c's 357s go for a more simple "the next station is...".

Can anyone confirm / elaborate?


Jeff

The 185s are "we are now arriving at.....York" I think. The 357s and 377s do indeed say "The next station is.....London Bridge" or whatever.

[Ben Hunter]

[Phil Reynolds]

Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Yeah, look, about that. In my defence...

No, I can't think of anything.

From Alan Turing to this in less than a year. I would be having a serious word with my agent, if I had one.

It did give me some grim amusement that, when I first read Kirk's post telling me I need to get out more, I had just got in from an evening spent rehearsing a dance routine which will require me to take all my clothes off in front of somewhere in excess of 1500 people. If anything I need to get out less.

[George Jenkins]

Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Yeah, look, about that. In my defence...

No, I can't think of anything.

From Alan Turing to this in less than a year. I would be having a serious word with my agent, if I had one.

It did give me some grim amusement that, when I first read Kirk's post telling me I need to get out more, I had just got in from an evening spent rehearsing a dance routine which will require me to take all my clothes off in front of somewhere in excess of 1500 people. If anything I need to get out less.

[Gavin Chipper]

Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

Yep. Anything where the confusion makes things unclear (using "deduct" for "deduce") or destroys useful distinctions ("imply" vs "infer") is worth objecting to. Saying "arrive into" doesn't cause either of these problems unless you're deliberately seeking to be confused, so there's no point fighting it; and, like the utterly pointless and unmotivated war on trailing prepositions, it won't make any difference if you do.

Actually yeah, I think I remember we had this discussion before and you said that. I must of forgotten.

[Charlie Reams]

Are there not any things that you hate about people's usage of English?

Yep. Anything where the confusion makes things unclear (using "deduct" for "deduce") or destroys useful distinctions ("imply" vs "infer") is worth objecting to. Saying "arrive into" doesn't cause either of these problems unless you're deliberately seeking to be confused, so there's no point fighting it; and, like the utterly pointless and unmotivated war on trailing prepositions, it won't make any difference if you do.

Actually yeah, I think I remember we had this discussion before and you said that. I must of forgotten.

Very good. Not saying I'd write like that myself, but if other people want to then it doesn't bother me, especially in informal contexts. Not that C4Countdown is not Serious Business, of course.

[John Bosley]

Clearly they announce that the train is 'arriving into' because it has not quite got there yet or is almost certainly not stationary. This can then be used in their defence when they are sued by a passenger who got off while it is still moving and did himself damage. 'Into' gives the vague feeling of movement.

[Simon Myers]

Clearly they announce that the train is 'arriving into' because it has not quite got there yet or is almost certainly not stationary. This can then be used in their defence when they are sued by a passenger who got off while it is still moving and did himself damage. 'Into' gives the vague feeling of movement.

I would have thought the word "arriving" did that job.

[Derek Hazell]

When you get to my age, you arrive at what you want to say, it arrives in your head ready, but then out it arrives into a vacuum...

[kevin manthorpe]

... I must of forgotten.

There's my bugbear!

[Neil Zussman]

Phil:
Would it be correct to say that a free copy of the (Leamington) Observer, complete with a front page picture of somebody I met not very long ago, arrived into my letter box, or in my letter box?

Yeah, look, about that. In my defence...

No, I can't think of anything.

From Alan Turing to this in less than a year. I would be having a serious word with my agent, if I had one.

It did give me some grim amusement that, when I first read Kirk's post telling me I need to get out more, I had just got in from an evening spent rehearsing a dance routine which will require me to take all my clothes off in front of somewhere in excess of 1500 people. If anything I need to get out less.

I don't think it really needs defending, I'm not mocking you for it. Not many people would have the balls to do something like that. My sister and cousin are both budding actresses, so I know how tough the business is- any gig is better than none, so good luck to you.
Forgive me if I don't come and watch, however.

[Jeff Clayton]

377s - is that Southern's main rolling stock, KB?

Jeff

[Michael Wallace]

I think this thread is going a bit off the rails...

[Jason Larsen]

Why would anyone write like that?