On vs. In

November 14, 2006 9:08 AM

Why do we say someone is "on" a television show, but that they're "in" a movie?
posted by pembleton to Writing & Language (13 answers total)

This has actually been asked before.
posted by null terminated at 9:10 AM on November 14, 2006

Because the show is ON tv, but the movie is IN a theater?
posted by Aquaman at 9:10 AM on November 14, 2006

On a related note, why are you in a car but on a bus?
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 9:12 AM on November 14, 2006

#I Am Not a Lobster: why are you in a car but on a bus?

You are "on" vehicles that you can walk around in. (but only if they are functioning as vehicles).

Also, the British conceive of telephone numbers as refering to telephone lines (presumably from lots of shared lines) while in the US, numbers refer to telephones. Thus call me on vs. call me at.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 9:23 AM on November 14, 2006

I was thinking that it had something to do with the ongoing nature of the TV show, but I think Aquaman has it.

Re: the bus issue, maybe because they are scheduled - you have to be ON the 4:45 to be ON time? Something like that?

That's all I've got.
posted by Mister_A at 9:25 AM on November 14, 2006

Get "in" the car (like stepping into a box) but get "on" a bus (step up onto it). It's relative height, I think. Plus what MonkeySaltedNuts said.
posted by war wrath of wraith at 9:31 AM on November 14, 2006

Because when you say you're "on a bus", you're implying you're using a bus service, which is the important part of the statement. "In a car" (or "in a bus") just says what kind of vehicle you're using.
posted by cillit bang at 9:33 AM on November 14, 2006

I think it's because the preposition "on" is used to describe broadcasting media and their channels and frequencies.

Broadcasters refer to a program or message transmitted on a specific frequency as "on channel five," "on the secure channel," and so on, using the analogy of content as placed on top of the wave medium. (The expression "on the air" comes from this, I suppose.)

I'm not so sure about the connection between movies and "in."
posted by Gordion Knott at 9:37 AM on November 14, 2006

Please do see the previous question, some really bright guys already gave excellent answers there.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 9:41 AM on November 14, 2006

Yes, please see the previous thread. Only correct answer:
It's just the way those particular idioms worked out.

Trying to think through idioms logically is a fruitless exercise. It's like old-time etymologists thumbing through Hebrew dictionaries trying to find the origins of English words: it can be fun and keeps you out of trouble, but it does not advance the sum of human knowledge.
posted by languagehat at 9:51 AM on November 14, 2006

Because when you say "Someone was ON television," what you're really saying is a shortened version of "Someone's image was ON the screen of my television."

But when you say "Someone was IN a movie," what you're really saying is "Someone was on the set of this movie, taking part IN creating it."

The shortenings of these ideas lead to the different pronouns.
posted by Darth Fedor at 9:52 AM on November 14, 2006

You would still, if you were in a movie theater, say "Someone was ON the screen."
posted by Darth Fedor at 9:53 AM on November 14, 2006

Demonstration why there isn't a real-world logical explanation of some (most?) of this stuff:

in English you are on the train

in French you are *in* the train ('sur le train' indicates that you're doing a Bond-style crawling on the train manoeuvre).

It's just how it's worked out.
posted by altolinguistic at 9:54 AM on November 14, 2006