This is the image that will come to mind whenever I hear
That would be this road
It should not be mistaken for the A63, which is the highway to Hull.
And if you park on the parkway, your car will probably get towed.
After 5 years in California, I have to code-switch when talking to friends and family in the Northeast: They laugh at me if I refer to any of their local limited-access highways as “freeways”.
Out there, the term is “expressway”; a “highway” is any road with several lanes in each direction and fast traffic (but which may still have occasional stoplights, and which allows non-motorized traffic, even if you don’t see much of that anymore).
California’s vehicle code, I believe, uses the term “highway” in the sense of “any public road”, but I’ve never heard any American use it that way in casual conversation.
And then there’s the map for “rotary” from that same dialect survey, which is just a map of the borders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Is that why highway robbery is so common there?
And no one ever takes the low road?
For me, highways and interstates are the same, as are freeways, but I’d never say freeway. Expressway, to me, is something specific on the way to Boston.
I almost said “I call highways ‘interstates’ but realized the problem.”
Interesting - only the pike?
I polled some Massachusetts friends, and they tell me “highway” is synonymous with “freeway” to them (though they’d never use the latter), which is interesting. To me, “highway” includes roads like MA Route 9 between Boston and Worcester, which is definitely not a “freeway” or an “expressway” (those are synonyms to me). But I can’t tell at this point how much of that is the California influence.
An interstate, to me, is specifically part of the interstate system. All interstates are freeways, but there are freeways/expressways which are not interstates (e.g. CA-101 in the Bay Area, MA-24 south of Boston).
Canonically, I will take the low road.
And I will of course be in Scotland afore you.
Unless I live in Greater Manchester of course in which case I’m not currently allowed to travel to Scotland at all.
Canonically it will be your dead body leaving Carlisle to go to Scotland, so maybe it would be better if you stayed in Greater Manchester.
Very common and almost entirely metaphorical these days.
Well, it depends whether I want to be in Scotland before you.
(ETA as @L0ki has already mentioned)
Having inspired this thread, forgive me for ranting on about my least favourite theme - preposition misuse.
Whoever the fuck WGNO are, they are fuckwits.
Being so far along in her pregnancy, she has no plans on climbing a ladder and retrieving the parcel.
“no plans on climbing”? FFS!
Why not say “no plans to climb”? Use the correct preposition and it all becomes elegant and clear.
I might have let them get away with “does not plan on climbing” (though “does not plan to climb” is better) but the form “has no plans on [doing]” is simply ugly.
“Does not plan on” uses plan as a verb and planning on is tolerable.
“Has no plans on” uses plan as a noun and is simply misuse. Has no plans on the table? Has no plans on the drawing board? Fine. But not “has no plans on doing”. Ever.
(I may be the only one resisting, and it is a guerrilla war, but the American War on Prepositions will not be lost for want of pointing out the misuse.)
Do you have a similarly negative reaction when there isn’t negation? Is “She plans on having 6 guests over on Independence Day.” grating? How about “She plans on six guests on Independence Day.”?
I see a big difference in meaning between “She plans to have 6 guests” and “She plans on having six guests”. Do you not?
In both your examples plan is a verb. I prefer ‘plans to’ but will tolerate ‘plans on’
But the example in the article was using plans as a noun. It has nothing to do with negation.
No. I see no difference. Please elucidate.
Good point. So “She has plans on having 6 guests” is bad?
In “Sarah plans to have 6 guests”, Sarah has decided that the number of guests will be 6 and has invited that many people over. In “Sarah plans on having 6 guests.”, Sarah is estimating that the number of guests that will come over is 6 and has done her planning in accord with that.
Yes. Bad. If the plan is a noun (she has plans - the plans are an object, or multiple objects) then using ‘on’ means the physical object must be physically on something. Or for something. I have plans for the evening. I have plans on my drawing board. I have plans to go out tonight. But not, I have plans on [doing/any verb]
Oops missed your other reply - back in a moment…
In both cases she has done her planning on the basis of 6 guests - whether she is estimating based on some other factor or has actually invited six guests is neither here nor there, to me. Six guests are expected and planned for.
So for you “Sarah planned to have a hurricane” is just as good as “Sarah planned on having a hurricane”? The difference between the two for me is that Sarah has volitional control over what she is planning when she is “planning to” and is adapting to circumstances when she is “planning on”. “Sarah plans to have a hurricane” is completely infelicitous to me.
Well, just as bad - nobody (except perhaps God) plans on having a hurricane, or to have a hurricane, with volitional control. She might plan on there being a hurricane, or might plan for (or make plans for) a hurricane. In either case there are plans and that is what matters. The volitional control is extremely moot, to the point of, for me, not being able to detect any difference in the cases you cite.
Sarah ‘planned to make a hurricane’, or ‘planned to cause one’, would far better express any volitional control.
If no control, then ‘Sarah plans for a hurricane’ implicitly means she ‘plans for the eventuality of a hurricane occurring’ or ‘a hurricane happening’.
Can you say “We are having a hurricane” or are you limited to saying “There is a hurricane”
The sentence “Plan on having bad weather in the mountains” is bad for you?
I plan on heading down to have that package come off of the lady’s roof.