# Preposition: Go <by, on> foot, bus, train, plane, bike, car, ...



## Oros

The force of the blasts ripped doors and windows off carriages and scattered luggage and debris. 
[...]

"There were so many [injured people], I couldn't really count," Sunny Jain said. 
"There are not enough ambulances and many people are making their own way to the station. They are coming in taxis and by foot." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We always say go on foot. Here it is go by foot. Is it fine?


----------



## Kelly B

I think you are correct - go _by _foot sounds odd to me. I'd say go _on _foot.


----------



## James Brandon

Some native speakers actually use "to go _by_ foot", but the correct preposition is "_on_" (to go on foot), whereas "by" is used with means of transport such as trains, planes and automobiles (to go by car, by train, by plane...).


----------



## panjandrum

I agree that on foot sounds better than by foot, but I have to say that by foot is used often, very often ...


----------



## Paulfromitaly

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I agree that on foot sounds better than by foot, but I have to say that by foot is used often, very often ...



I can assure you that plenty of Italian speakers would say "by foot" and, although I'm used now to saying "on foot", I'm quite sure that I'd been taught to say "byt foot" at school.


----------



## roxcyn

Okay so I went to blingo and did a search (which uses google search)

"By foot": 
Andover-Harvard Library - Directions - *by Foot* http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/about/directions/by_foot.htmlhttp://www.blingo.com/images/newwindow.gif 
                                          Directions *by Foot*. Walking from Harvard Square. The library is approximately a
  15-minute walk from Harvard Square. These directions originate from the *...
*(_FROM HARVARD UNIVERSITY!!!)

_303 000 search results when I searched "by foot" (with the quotes)

1 420 000 results when I searched "on foot" (wit the quotes)

Two Minn residents reach North Pole *on foot* http://www.physorg.com/news71154099.htmlhttp://www.blingo.com/images/newwindow.gif 
                                          PhysOrg news: Two Minn residents reach North Pole *on foot*.

So, I would say that both have to be right.  How could some "scholar" of the Harvard university use by foot?    I am kidding.  Actually I think I would use "on foot", however "by foot" sounds okay to me.


----------



## James Brandon

Would "_by_ foot" be more common in American English? I think that, in British English (and I don't know about Ireland), "_on_ foot" is far more common and generally considered correct, as opposed to the use of "by".


----------



## panjandrum

My hesitation about by foot was based on finding lots of examples in BE:
' Ghost tour information is on 'Oxford by Foot'


----------



## heidita

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I agree that on foot sounds better than by foot, but I have to say that by foot is used often, very often ...


I am really surprised, as I normally teach this as a mistake. The Official School of Languages in Madrid frequently includes this question in multiple choices and _by foot_ is not considered to be correct.


----------



## panjandrum

I sympathise.
My hesitation was based on the number of reputable links I found that used "by foot"


----------



## la reine victoria

This question could be solved by saying "going by Shanks's pony".

Seriously, I would use "on foot", but it's far more natural to say, "I'm walking."




LRV


----------



## heidita

This is rather used in multiple choices like :by bike, by train, by plane, but _on foot_

Yes I agree, your Majesty,_ I shall walk_ is more natural.


----------



## chenkd

I think this is the issue concerning the formal and informal use of English. In any textbook and on any English class, " on foot" is presented. I even remembered once I was teseted on this when I chose mistakenly " by foot" and got wrong.(This kind of tests are often conducted when we begin to learn English in China, called "choosing the right prep.") But in daily life, if you use "by foot", I don't think it will cause any problems. And I agree with the more natural expression " I am walking."


----------



## roxcyn

That's why multiple tests can be difficult.  They do not account for other answers or explainations.  Like the on/by foot .  But let's say that it is "on" foot for those exams (because we do want to get the "right" answer), but in real-life situations (even with scholar-sources such as Harvard), someone could use either.


----------



## jimreilly

heidita said:
			
		

> This is rather used in multiple choices like :by bike, by train, by plane, but _on foot_
> 
> Yes I agree, your Majesty,_ I shall walk_ is more natural.



How long does this thread have to continue before we realize that this is one of those cases where "correct" English (defined at some past time) is one thing and actual usage is often another. 

This past Sunday I went by foot from my house to the Alliance Française downtown to watch the World Cup match. Maybe if I had gone downtown on foot France would have won? 

The point is, common usage includes both on foot and by foot.  

There are also two ways to go by bicycle: by bicyle, or on a bicycle. And on can go by train, or on a train. (Pesky little "a" there--only a one-footed person would go downtown on a foot). One does also hear "I got there by/on my own two feet". And so forth.....English is confusing, "correct" or any other way, but it certainly is alive.


----------



## heidita

jimreilly said:
			
		

> How long does this thread have to continue before we realize that this is one of those cases where "correct" English (defined at some past time) is one thing and actual usage is often another.


 
I wonder why you specifically quote me as several other forers say exactly the same thing.

Well, anyway, I understood that the German forer was asking if  _by foot_ was ok or not. 

I do not think that on this forum we have any doubt that in any language you _may_ use certain expressions and that they are actually widely used in colloquial language. So colloquially it would be ok. 

But I do not think it is a good idea not to state that in a test or alike, _by foot _would be grammatically incorrect , as surely the student would get a fail for that usage.

And correct English is still defined as such, if you have to learn it from scratch. You can only learn by usage the different nuances to a foreign language.


----------



## James Brandon

I think it is important not to mislead contributors seeking simple answers to simple questions, and who may be learners of English (as a foreign language, to them), and who may also be sitting exams. 

And there is such a thing as "correct" and "incorrect" use of language. To deny that there is such a thing would mean that you can write anything you like, in any situation. This may be an appealing (and egotistical) idea on an intellectual level, but it is plainly not true, in practice. If it were the case, why do newspapers employ small armies of sub-editors and proofreaders? Then again, of course, any language evolves continuously.

To go back to the question, even though there may be instances where people say "by foot", it does appear important to me to accept that "on foot" is regarded as the correct form, and the _only_ one. And this is true of all TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) tests too.


----------



## panjandrum

As I said earlier, the normal usage is *on foot*; *by foot* is somewhat unusual. In this case I don't think there is any grammatical reason for preferring *on* to *by*. Of course, I wouldn't have come across any grammatical "rule" on this point and I wasn't able to find one yesterday when I searched.

Can anyone explain why *on* is better than *by*?
Or is it only a matter of "that's the way we say it".


----------



## James Brandon

Panj,
You are right in that sense - I would not say it is intrinsically "better". "Correct" merely means that, in general usage (and as far as exams are concerned...), "on" is deemed Ok and "by" is deemed wrong... A lot of language is indeed based on the "that's the way we say it" rule, insofar as usage plays a part - and it inevitably (and rightly) does.


----------



## panjandrum

Thanks James 
I suppose that my own personal problem is that I like there to be some rationale for the usage - and especially if it comes to something that will be marked wrong in an English exam.

Maybe *by* is an abbreviated version of _*by means of*_ - or some similar construction that requires an external transport thing.


----------



## James Brandon

Panj,
In some cases, the "correct" usage can be derived from the origin (real or imaginary) of the word (or expression) - this _etymological_ factor also needs to be taken into account, not that I think it applies here. In some cases too, the grammar "rule" may have been set by linguists and grammarians quite late in the day, if only because there was a desire to "streamline" the language - so, inevitably, much of all this is _not_ rational! As for ON Vs BY here, I do not know the answer, if there is one... 

PS When you read a play by Shakespeare in the original English, you realize how haphazard spelling, in particular, was at the time, by today's standards at any rate...


----------



## MarcB

I agree with those who say on/by foot are both correct. On foot is far more common,but b foot is used from time to time. Of course to walk has the same meaning but,I think the nuances are different.


----------



## Sallyb36

I think they are equally interchangeable


----------



## la reine victoria

> Panjandrum
> Can anyone explain why *on* is better than *by*?
> Or is it only a matter of "that's the way we say it".


 


Only that, as James said in an earlier post, when you go *by* something it involves a form of transport - car, bus, train, boat.  Something which doesn't involve walking.

When you are walking it follows that you are *on* foot, using your own energy (power) to get you to your destination.  You aren't sitting or lying down, you are *on *your feet.



LRV


----------



## panjandrum

It is important that we take care in situations like this not to mislead students of English.

It is very clear that they need to use *on foot*, not *by foot*. 
It is easy to find examples of tests on the internet where *by foot* is being marked wrong.

What I was looking for was some kind of rationale for our preference, not a defence for the rule 

@James,
We agree.
Somewhere down the forum there is an explanation (given by someone else) that the rules of English grammar were formulated as guidelines for teachers in the 1800s based on what was at that time considered to be educated usage.  Most were not intended to be applied in all circumstances for all time.
If I have time, I'll look for the reference


----------



## James Brandon

It is obvious that grammar rules are, up to a point, conventions - and it can be a fine line between usage and what is referred to as grammar. Having said all that, and even if grammer rules are mere conventions, up to a point at any rate, it does not make them less _valid_, so long as one accepts that certain conventions are desirable in any form of organized society. (E.g.: Belching loudly in a smart restaurant - or, rather, not being expected to - is a convention; yet, many, in the context of a western society at any rate, would find this convention rather appropriate and welcome.)

PS I know we agreed on this one, Panj.
PPS For once.


----------



## jimreilly

heidita said:
			
		

> I wonder why you specifically quote me as several other forers say exactly the same thing.
> 
> *Sheer chance--I couldn't quote everyone at once, and I certainly didn't mean to pick on you. Sorry !*
> 
> [quote-panjandrum]It is important that we take care in situations like this not to mislead students of English.
> 
> It is very clear that they need to use *on foot*, not *by foot*.
> It is easy to find examples of tests on the internet where *by foot* is being marked wrong.
> 
> *The point is well-taken; I don't want anyone to flunk a test because of one of my answers. I generally try to answer from my experience with the language, as I use it myself and as I hear it used by a wide variety of people. I will try to make that clearer.
> 
> 
> *


----------



## mhp

In the sense of traveling, both “on foot” and “by foot” are correct.
  This usage is recognized by most dictionaries:

_   Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Ed.—not available online)_
*foot* v.tr. 1 (usu. as foot it) *a* traverse (esp. a long distance) by foot. *b* dance.

_American Heritage Dictionary_
*v.* _tr._ *1*. To go by foot over, on, or through; tread.

_WordNet (r) 1.7_
By foot, or On foot, by walking; as, to pass a stream on foot.


----------



## James Brandon

You could be right but the fact remains that most people - including people setting exam papers in TEFL, for learners of English as a secnd language - view "on foot" as better and more correct... 

The problem with dictionaries, more so than ever, is that they have moved from a prescriptive focus (what should be) to a descriptive angle (what is). This may be good, but it can muddy the waters. So, are the dictionaries saying that "by foot" is OK because many people use it, and they are just acknowledging (limited) usage? I am not saying this is what is going on here, but it could be. 

Conversally, dictionaries advise against using certain words in the name of political correctness ("has become offensive and is best avoided") - in other words, dictionary writers feel free to give prescriptive advice on social issues and the social use of language, as opposed to purely linguistic issues... Odd, come to think of it.

However, some may confirm that this is not what is happening here and that "by foot" has been used/approved of since the days of Henry VIII or whatever...


----------



## river

My young son just read _My Little Isand_ in which the author writes "When we get to town, the sun is just peeking over the mountaintops, but people from nearby villages are already arriving by bus, by donkey, by foot!"

"By" seems to work very well in that sentence.


----------



## maxiogee

I think it only works 'by association" the other instances of 'by'.

I'm not sure about the grammatical credentials of the sentence as I am slightly stirred by the "When we get … the sun is peeking …"


----------



## hqindia

Go, Run and Walk - no body says run by foot, or walk by foot. Though some people use go by foot, but that is not correct. It should be go on foot.


----------



## mhp

James Brandon said:
			
		

> The problem with dictionaries, more so than ever, is that they have moved from a prescriptive focus (what should be) to a descriptive angle (what is) [...] I am not saying this is what is going on here, but it could be.


 The interesting thing about the citations from the Oxford and the American Heritage dictionaries is that they do not explicitly acknowledge the widespread use of “to go/travel by foot”, but rather they use it in the text of the definition of the verb “to foot”. This either makes the authors somewhat careless if this usage is not acceptable, or it could be that the authors consider it to be perfectly acceptable formal English.


----------



## panjandrum

I share your concern about this - but if you hunt around some of the online ESL tests, you'll find that there are plenty of multiple choice questions that mark "by foot" wrong.
Hence the cautions posted here and there in this thread.

The mystery for me is, *why* is "by foot" considered by some to be incorrect?


----------



## James Brandon

You could argue that "by + means of transport" is based on the idea that the said means of transport is _external_ to the person (by car, by boat, etc.) whereas "on + foot" merely states that we move around _on_ our own two feet. But this may well be a reconstructed explanation that _appears_ more or less logical, i.e. a justification "ex-post" as opposed to an etymologically correct interpretation based on the origin of the phrase!

There is clearly an issue of usage, but that in itself is not a satisfactory explanation from a logical standpoint - then again, language is rarely entirely rationally constructed... Other contributors may know of a precise reason behind "by" Vs "on" here.


----------



## A90Six

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I share your concern about this - but if you hunt around some of the online ESL tests, you'll find that there are plenty of multiple choice questions that mark "by foot" wrong.
> Hence the cautions posted here and there in this thread.
> 
> The mystery for me is, *why* is "by foot" considered by some to be incorrect?


*My thoughts:*

Could it be that *by* identifies the mode of transport used, and *on* (or *in*) substitutes the verb; what one actually did to get somewhere:

I went on foot. I walked/ran. (I think *foot* here should be considered plural, which is why it does not take *a*, as in three foot long/six foot tall/300 foot (soldiers).
I went on a horse. I rode.
I went on a bike. I rode.
I went in a car. I drove/I was driven.
I went on a train. I rode(?).
I went on a plane. I flew/I was flown.


----------



## Feppisher

On foot. At least in American usage. But the difference is slight and even a purist might not notice the boo boo.

So slight that I'm starting to doubt now there's any real difference. 

Or maybe I'm just tired.


----------



## James Brandon

To go somewhere on _foot_, meaning on one's two _feet_: there are many examples of the singular being used when a plural is meant/implied in English.

Eg It was delivered by hand (which one?)
Eg Tony, Peter and Brian met face to face last week for the first time (how many faces? 3)
Eg The lion is a ferocious animal (generic singular => the species => lions in general)

But this does not explain why "on" instead of "by"... "By" may relate to "by a certain means of transport".


----------



## heidita

What I find surprising is that not even natives agree on the use of by foot/on foot.

As Panjandrum has underlined, as far as I know, ALL multiple choice tests I am aware of (tests taken in Germany, Spain an even England!) point out  by foot as an incorrect answer.


----------



## maxiogee

panjandrum said:
			
		

> The mystery for me is, *why* is "by foot" considered by some to be incorrect?



Because teacher says so! Don't argue!

Alongside A90Six's argument for "on" I would put this.
Could "by' be the equivalent of "by way of"?
- we went by road (as against over the fields)
- we went by sea (as against overland)


----------



## Celador

Go by feet ? Unless you intend to hop, maybe...


----------



## ireney

While I don't really have a problem (I don't think I've ever used 'by' since my teachers made sure that "on foot" was rammed through my memory and all the way to the panicky-automatic-reply section of my brain since we use 'with' in Greek for all means of transportation including one's own feet) the whole discussion is very interesting

 this  site, quoting a book I think (just skipped through most of the page), says that it's a matter of not using any _means_.


 this  discussion offers some interesting ideas too.


----------



## heidita

Ireney, very interesting links.

I have found this



> So, we say *on* foot because walking means moving *directly* on the ground; there is no intervening means of transport.


 
*Celador*, but we do not say go on feet either.

Well, I have after all found these

Resultados *1* - *10* de aproximadamente *217* de *"go ...by feet"*. 
Resultados *1* - *10* de aproximadamente *304* de *"go ...on feet"*. 

I think the plural doesn't work. Does it?
Would you use it?


----------



## la reine victoria

heidita said:
			
		

> Ireney, very interesting links.
> 
> I have found this
> 
> 
> 
> *Celador*, but we do not say go on feet either.
> 
> Well, I have after all found these
> 
> Resultados *1* - *10* de aproximadamente *217* de *"go ...by feet"*.
> Resultados *1* - *10* de aproximadamente *304* de *"go ...on feet"*.
> 
> I think the plural doesn't work. Does it?
> Would you use it?


 


I wouldn't use it, Heidi.  



Regards,
LRV


----------



## James Brandon

One has to be sensible, here. If you say something like, "I always go to the supermarket on my feet, because it's not too far and I don't need to drive there," I believe the average British person would simply think one of three things: (a) She can't speak English; (b) She's bonkers; (c) She's both - unless she's a spider or something, and likes to stress the fact she has 8 of them...


----------



## Celador

James Brandon said:
			
		

> One has to be sensible, here. If you say something like, "I always go to the supermarket on my feet, because it's not too far and I don't need to drive there," I believe the average British person would simply think one of three things: (a) She can't speak English; (b) She's bonkers; (c) She's both - unless she's a spider or something, and likes to stress the fact she has 8 of them...


 

Except, for example:

After a brief illness he was back on his _feet_.


----------



## James Brandon

Yes, but that's an idiomatic expression. Try and say, in regular conversation: "I went to the pub by (my) feet yesterday." It may elicit a response such as: "How many have you got, then?" Or: "Yours or someone else's - since some of us like to be carried around on someone else's plates of meat." Etc.


----------



## Celador

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Yes, but that's an idiomatic expression. Try and say, in regular conversation: "I went to the pub by (my) feet yesterday." It may elicit a response such as: "How many have you got, then?" Or: "Yours or someone else's - since some of us like to be carried around on someone else's plates of meat." Etc.


 
I entirely accept your point about "being back on one's feet" being an idiomatic expression, but so too is "by/on foot", when what one actually means is the use of both feet:

Once I'm back on my feet I'll visit you on foot (beign no mean feat, since you live at the other foot of the mountain).


----------



## James Brandon

Being no mean feet, you mean?


----------



## Celador

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Being no mean feet, you mean?


 
No mean _feat_, i.e. a remarkable deed (from Fr. "fait", I think)...


----------



## James Brandon

Actually, I had understood. As it were, I was pulling your leg.


----------



## Montaigne

"on" vs. "by" might be a matter of transitivity/intransitivity related meaning.
Intransitive : to go on foot (to walk).
Transitive : to go by foot on (to tread).

Simply walking definitely requires "on". Walking on, over or along triggers "by".

I agree that "by" has to do with some kind of external means (not all), but
which would you recommand :
1) he went on roller skates
2) he went by roller skates 

                 or may be just he roller skated ????


----------



## Celador

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Actually, I had understood. As it were, I was pulling your leg.


 

Sorry, I didn't mean to put my foot in my mouth (feet in mouth ???)...


----------



## mhp

It is a shame that these will be deleted. What is the exchange of ideas without a laugh or two?


----------



## heidita

Celador said:
			
		

> Except, for example:
> 
> After a brief illness he was back on his _feet_.


 
In any case a different story. As the expression is

to be on one's feet

We have been talking up to now _by foot/on foot_ with verbs of movement.


----------



## panjandrum

mhp said:
			
		

> It is a shame that these will be deleted. What is the exchange of ideas without a laugh or two?


Where the exchange of ideas includes a laugh or two, it will, generally survive. Where the laugh or two includes no exchange of ideas, or is significantly off-topic, it will, generally, not survive long.


----------



## Thomas1

Which words would you use in the below sentences, please (I’d ask only natives to pick their preferred prepositions and that you don’t read the later posts answering my question before making yours ). If you’d use more than one please mark that and say when you used the first one and when the other. If you think that there is no word that could be used in a sentence, please, suggest your alternative but only when you think that the suggested word doesn't make any sense in English.

Majority of US citizens travel by car rather than ___ foot.


A: We need to buy some stuff at deli. 
B: I’ll go and say dad to drop us there.
A: We don’t need to go there by car we can walk, the weather is decent and it’s not too far. A five minute-walk ___ foot.

Traveling ___ foot is an alternative to traveling by car in small villages.


I go two miles ___ foot to school.

He painted this picture ___ foot, he had hard times when they amputated him both arms after the accident and now he seems to have the only thing he can do and not think about what happened.

There's no bus to the village we have to get ther ___ foot.


​I just made up these sentences and want to see the most used form. If you want to add some comments—they will be very welcomed. 



Tom


PS: this is not my homework and anything of this kind, of course.


----------



## panjandrum

You'll think this is a cop-out, but most of those examples would not, in practice, involve <preposition> foot.
This raises an interesting point.
We have had great fun talking about on foot and by foot, and it only now occurs to me to suggest that whichever we might prefer, there are alternatives that are much more natural. So, my preferred versions of your example sentences:
Majority of US citizens travel by car rather than ___ foot walk.
[...] and it’s not too far. A five minute-walk ___ foot only a five-minute walk.
Traveling ___ foot Walking is an alternative to traveling by car in small villages.
I go walk two miles ___ foot to school.
He painted this picture with his foot, [...]
There's no bus to the village we have to get ther ___ foot walk.

To answer your question, though, if you forced me into a corner and twisted my arm I would suggest *on* for all of the sentences except the painting one - which would have to be _*by*_.

PS I think it is very clear that this is not homework or anything of the kind


----------



## Celador

To answer your question, though, if you forced me into a corner and twisted my arm I would suggest *on* for all of the sentences except the painting one - which would have to be _*by*_.

PS I think it is very clear that this is not homework or anything of the kind[/quote]

Very interesting. However, in my expereince, some non native speakers have difficulty pronouncing the word "walk", which they sometimes confuse with "work".


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi,

I think that it is correct to say, instead of "go by foot" or "go on foot", *"go by walking" *I'm not 100% sure, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks


----------



## James Brandon

I think Panj is 100% right in what he says. And people would either say "to go on foot" or "to walk". You could say: "You can get there on foot - it's not too far." "You can get there by walking - it's not too far" sounds needlessly complicated since there is..."on foot".


----------



## mishac

***Blowing dust off of thread*** 

I have taught English in Spain for over 10 years and have always seen all textbooks present "on foot" as the differenciated case from "by plane, by bus, by boat, by car, by bus"

My son is 21 months old. They have an English teacher at his daycare center and she just sent home this month's "concepts". And you got it- it's transport!
by bus, by plane, by boat, BY FOOT etc... no mention of "on foot". Now that's a first for me! Having it be an accepted form is one thing, teaching it as the only form is another... wouldn't it have been easier to leave out and just show the kids examples where it is all external transport?

Anyway- it kind of gets my goat. 

And as far as the question as to why this option is on all the exams.

IMHO, it is a simple *gotcha* question for multiple choice. Much like "go to the office, go to the supermarket, go to the cinema VS. go to school, go to work, go home". It's just easy to present with two groups and then test on "which doesn't belong". That is not to say that most teachers would even AGREE with all of these rules in all of these circumstances- it's just an easy test question to write and grade.

That definitely shouldn't influence anyone's usage, but it is good to have in mind when teaching students who are trying to pass a standardized test. Next stop- influencing the test makers to not be lazy and to write decent questions.


----------



## jimreilly

This thread again, mishac! After all this time, now that I review all the posts, I wonder....

Did "on foot" and "by foot" come into English from different roots--"à pied" in French, something else in OE, Frisian, etc (like the word "foot" itself)?

Has preferred usage changed over time? Did both usages exist in Shakespeare? in the King James? (I don't have concordances handy).

*It's "on foot" for exams! Meanwhile....*


----------



## Harry Batt

It is a matter of the mind.  You go by foot if you don't have a choice. If the passengers here wanted to leave promptly they did not have much choice.  Consequently they went by foot. When there is a choice, you go on foot rather than take what else might be available. In American conversation a speaker might use on or the other.


----------



## Packard

heidita said:


> This is rather used in multiple choices like :by bike, by train, by plane, but _on foot_
> 
> Yes I agree, your Majesty,_ I shall walk_ is more natural.


 
But if I were to write:

*How will you be coming? By train, by car or by foot?* I am pretty sure I would use *by* for continuity. 

I would say:

I am traveling *by* foot.

He came *on* foot.

No rule on that, just by the sound. That is how I would phrase it.


----------



## James Brandon

Certain issues never die. They just go away, then come back. _On_ foot. Or, according to some, _by_ foot.


----------



## jessi1

I think that it is natural to say by foot, especially in the United States, and especially if you are thinking about going somewhere by foot as opposed to other forms of transportation. For example, if you visit a University website, it will give directions "by foot, by car, by plane, etc." I am a native speaker from the US, and I use this more than on foot, although on foot is also used.


----------



## sunyaer

Packard said:


> But if I were to write:
> 
> *How will you be coming? By train, by car or by foot?* I am pretty sure I would use *by* for continuity.
> 
> I would say:
> 
> I am traveling *by* foot.
> 
> He came *on* foot.
> 
> No rule on that, just by the sound. That is how I would phrase it.



"By" means "by means of", perfectly answering the question of "how...".

"On" has the meaning of "with the support of". As your feet are parts of your body, "on foot" means "using your feet", being a good answer if the question is "what did you use to move yourself in your travelling".


----------



## Packard

sunyaer said:


> "By" means "by means of", perfectly answering the question of "how...".
> 
> "On" has the meaning of "with the support of". As your feet are parts of your body, "on foot" means "using your feet", being a good answer if the question is "what did you use to move yourself in your travelling".



Thanks for putting the reasoning behind my response.  It all makes perfect sense to me.

Packard


----------

