# EN: on foot / by foot



## sobrienti

Hello everybody 

I am a little confused about the use of the expression "on foot".
I would like to talk to my pen pal about my will to visit her next summer (she lives in the United States). Here is the sentence that I plan on using: 
"I'll be going to the US by any means even if I have to swim from Europe to New York and then cross the entire United States *on* foot!". This is supposed to be a joke, initially 
Should I use the expression "on foot" or "by foot" in this context?

I have read some threads on this forum about this matter but unfortunately I couldn't find an answer.
Thanks for your help!


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

When in doubt, choose a third option! How about "walk across the US" or "walk through each State"?


----------



## brumeux

"I'll be going to the US by any means even if I have to swim from Europe to New York and then cross the entire United States *on* foot!".

Your sentence is correct and well-written.  But since your friend lives in the US, you may want to say: "I'll be *coming* to the US ..."

To my ear "*by* foot" is also acceptable, but I think most English speakers would say it the way you wrote it.


----------



## Bobstein

After having checked numerous dictionaries, you can indeed say both. However, I think '_on foot_' is the more commonly used expression and '_by foot_' is more commonly used to talk about a means of transport (i.e. train, car, boat, plane, etc).

Hope that helps


----------



## mcl357

Although *by foot* is very commonly said, *on foot* is actually the _correct_ usage.

e.g. to travel by car, by bike, on foot.


----------



## Bobstein

mcl357 - check an Oxford English Dictionary and you'll find that 'by foot' is of standard (and not _correct_) usage.


----------



## Maître Capello

Actually, I second mcl357: although many people say _by foot_ and even if a few dictionaries also mention that preposition, _on foot_ is the only correct way to say it from a syntactical standpoint.

(On a side note, people have the exact same problem in French between _en vélo_ and _à vélo_, the latter being the only truly correct syntax…)


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

Maître Capello said:


> Actually, I second mcl357: although many people say _by foot_ and even if a few dictionaries also mention that preposition, _on foot_ is the only correct way to say it from a syntactical standpoint.
> 
> (On a side note, people have the exact same problem in French between _en vélo_ and _à vélo_, the latter being the only truly correct syntax…)



Apologies in advance if this is slightly off-topic or if it has been debated at length before, but how do you define "incorrect" in the case of a word or structure that is used by the majority of native speakers of a language? Would you say, for instance, that "je me souviens" is incorrect syntax and that we should instead say "il me souvient" as was the norm a few centuries ago, because it makes more sense syntactically speaking if you consider what "sou(s)-venir" really means? Or shouldn't we, as all serious linguists do, adopt a descriptive rather than normative attitude, and infer the underlying rules of the language based on what native speakers actually do say?
OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now.


----------



## Bobstein

_Actually_ (I hate that word), they are both "correct", even from a syntactical standpoint. But 'on foot' is more common... google it, the number of search results will prove that. At the end of the day, it wouldn't be in a 2010 dictionary if it wasn't "correct" or in current usage.


----------



## Blumengarten

Bobstein said:


> it wouldn't be in a 2010 dictionary if it wasn't "correct" or in current usage.



"Actually" it used to be the case that you could refer to a dictionary to determine correct usage (as my old grammar teacher used to remind us, "ain't ain't in the dictionary), but modern dictionaries simply reflect usage, not correctness.

On a side note, the quoted text should read, "... if it WEREN'T 'correct'," not "wasn't."


----------



## Maître Capello

Francobritannocolombien said:


> […] how do you define "incorrect" in the case of a word or structure that is used by the majority of native speakers of a language? […] Or shouldn't we, as all serious linguists do, adopt a descriptive rather than normative attitude, and infer the underlying rules of the language based on what native speakers actually do say?


I beg to disagree with you. As a matter of fact, the majority of native speakers are sometimes just wrong! You cannot always trust them to use correct grammar. (Just have a look at the _weren't/wasn't_ issue pointed out by Blumengarten above… )





> as all serious  linguists do


I sincerely hope you didn't mean that! That peremptory comment of yours is not objective I'm afraid… 


Anyway, we're getting sidetracked… Back to the original question, nobody will disagree with the following:


Both _by foot_ and _on foot_ are used, but the latter is much more frequent.
Nobody has anything against _on foot_.
Some consider _by foot_ to be incorrect.
Summary note to all non-natives: if you just stick to _on foot_, you will always be fine and nobody will ever complain.


----------



## Bobstein

Maître Capello said:


> Anyway, we're getting sidetracked… Back to the original question, nobody will disagree with the following:
> 
> 
> Both _by foot_ and _on foot_ are used, but the latter is much more frequent.
> Nobody has anything against _on foot_.
> Some consider _by foot_ to be incorrect.
> Summary note to all non-natives: if you just stick to _on foot_, you will always be fine and nobody will ever complain.



I agree! I've never said otherwise. I just don't like it when non-native speakers use the term 'correct'. Language is neither incorrect or correct. The term is standard or non-standard. The standard form is both on/by foot.


----------



## mcl357

If you really want to stress the _arduousness _of the journey you are prepared to undertake to see her, you could always say you will be *using shanks' pony*.

This eliminates the by/on dilemma.


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

Maître Capello said:


> I beg to disagree with you. As a matter of fact, the majority of native speakers are sometimes just wrong! You cannot always trust them to use correct grammar. (Just have a look at the _weren't/wasn't_ issue pointed out by Blumengarten above… )[...]I sincerely hope you didn't mean that! That peremptory comment of yours is not objective I'm afraid… [...]



With all due respect, I find it somewhat ironic that advocating a descriptive rather than  prescriptive point of view can be met with accusations of not being objective. But I agree that this is off topic, so I will be starting a new thread on this topic (defining "correctness"), because I am seriously interested in reading what others have to say about it.


----------



## mcl357

FrBrCo:  I think that the accusation of your comments being peremptory  and not  objective, refers to the statement "as all serious linguists do"
 rather than  whether we should "adopt a descriptive rather than  normative attitude."  

 If we prescribe what _all serious linguists do_, we're not leaving  the door open to discussion.


----------



## sound shift

In the transport context, I associate "by" with vehicles: "by bus", "by train", etc. I say "on foot".


----------



## Maître Capello

mcl357 said:


> FrBrCo:  I think that the accusation of your comments being peremptory  and not  objective, refers to the statement "as all serious linguists do"
> rather than  whether we should "adopt a descriptive rather than  normative attitude."
> 
> If we prescribe what _all serious linguists do_, we're not leaving  the door open to discussion.


 That's it!


----------



## geostan

I never say "by foot."


----------



## Charlie51

I agree with geostan - "by foot" sounds wrong to me.


----------



## mcl357

Judging by all the above posts taken together, it seems that we agree universally that 'by foot' might be ok to use but that no-one does actually use it!


----------

