# at the river/on the river



## stephenlearner

Hi,

Please look at the pictures. 
Should I say they are fishing _at the river or on the river_?  Thank you.


----------



## kentix

They are fishing in the river.

If they were in a boat, they would be on the river fishing.


----------



## Uncle Jack

They are by the river.
They are fishing in the river, or simply fishing the river. Note that whatever follows "fishing" usually describes where the fish are, not where they are.


----------



## stephenlearner

How about this picture? Can I say "he is fishing in the river"?





And this one? Can I say "they are fishing in the river"?


----------



## Andygc

stephenlearner said:


> And this one? Can I say "they are fishing in the river"?


That has already been answered.


kentix said:


> If they were in a boat, they would be on the river fishing.





stephenlearner said:


> How about this picture? Can I say "he is fishing in the river"?


I would have thought that was obvious. Where is he? In the river.


----------



## stephenlearner

"He is fishing in the river", without context, can mean:
1. He is by the river fishing.
2. He is in the water fishing.

IS there any other meaning?


Can "He is on the river fishing" cause ambiguity?
1. He is in a boat.
2. He is by the river, on the bank of the river.


----------



## dojibear

stephenlearner said:


> Can "He is on the river fishing" cause ambiguity?


Not saying something is not "ambiguity".

"He is fishing in the river." is not ambiguous. It doesn't say where he is.


----------



## stephenlearner

If I want to say where he is in relation to the river when he fishes, what should I say? Are these sentences below correct?
1st picture: They are by the river fishing. 
2nd picture: He is by the river fishing. 
3rd picture: He is in the river fishing. 
4th picture: They are on the river fishing.


----------



## Uncle Jack

stephenlearner said:


> If I want to say where he is in relation to the river when he fishes, what should I say? Are these sentences below correct?
> 1st picture: They are by the river fishing.
> 2nd picture: He is by the river fishing.
> 3rd picture: He is in the river fishing.
> 4th picture: They are on the river fishing.


All of those are fine.


----------



## stephenlearner

Uncle Jack said:


> They are fishing in the river, or simply fishing the river. Note that whatever follows "fishing" usually describes where the fish are, not where they are.


 What does "in" mean in your sentence? Does it mean "in the area of river"? Or "in the river" does not mean “they" are in the river, but rather "they are catching _fish_ which are in the river"? 

Similarly, can I say "they are fishing_* in *_the sea/ocean", whether they are by the sea/ocean or in a boat on the sea/ocean?


----------



## Uncle Jack

stephenlearner said:


> What does "in" mean in your sentence? Does it mean "in the area of river"? Or "in the river" does not mean “they" are in the river, but rather "they are catching _fish_ which are in the river"?


The fish are in the river. I am sure what you understand is meant by this sentence, and "in" has exactly the same meaning in "they are fishing in the river".


stephenlearner said:


> Similarly, can I say "they are fishing_* in *_the sea/ocean", whether they are by the sea/ocean or in a boat on the sea/ocean?


Possibly. It would be fine if they are standing on land to fish in the sea, but it isn't the obvious expression to use for someone on a boat at sea, generally because as soon as a sea-going boat is involved, they cannot be fishing anywhere else other than the sea.


----------



## stephenlearner

Uncle Jack said:


> but it isn't the obvious expression to use for someone on a boat at sea, generally because as soon as a sea-going boat is involved, they cannot be fishing anywhere else other than the sea.


 I understand what you said as this: It's not good to say "they are fishing in the sea" because as soon as a sea-going boat is involved, they cannot be fishing anywhere else other than the sea. I can't understand the cause-effect or reason-result relationship. Could you elaborate on this, please?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Sentences don't exist in isolation. For someone to say "They are fishing" requires some context, perhaps it is the answer to a question.

Perhaps "They are fishing" does not provide enough information, in  which case you may add where they are by saying "by the old bridge", "in the river", "on the pier" or "in the sea". However, "in the sea" in this sentence suggests that they are standing on dry land.

If they are fishing in a boat at sea, I cannot think of any situation where the most important thing to add to the clause "They are fishing" would be "at sea". Either it is superfluous because the other person knows they have a boat they often use for fishing, and "They are fishing" by itself means that they are out at sea in the boat. or if the other person doesn't know about the boat, then being in a boat becomes the most important thing: "They are out in a boat" or "They are out fishing in a boat".


----------



## stephenlearner

Uncle Jack said:


> or if the other person doesn't know about the boat, then being in a boat becomes the most important thing: "They are out in a boat" or "They are out fishing in a boat".


 Yes, I agree that "being in a boat" is very important, but knowing that they are out fishing in a boat, in my opinion, is not enough, because they might be on a river or on a lake or at sea.


----------



## Uncle Jack

stephenlearner said:


> Yes, I agree that "being in a boat" is very important, but knowing that they are out fishing in a boat, in my opinion, is not enough, because they might be on a river or on a lake or at sea.


If the context does not make it clear, then it can be added. "They're in a boat on the river" or They're out at sea". The point is that I cannot think of any situation where you would say "They are fishing in the sea" when they are fishing from a boat rather than fishing from the shore or a pier.


----------



## zaffy

Where is this hotel situated? On the river?


----------



## kentix

That would be a normal thing to say.


----------



## zaffy

There seems to be lack of logic in English. I guess these buildings are *on* the river, aren't they? Or are they *in* the river?


----------



## dojibear

zaffy said:


> There seems to be lack of logic in English.


In post #16 and #18, you are using different meanings of the word "on". That isn't "lack of logic". That is "multiple meanings".

on - WordReference.com Dictionary of English

Post #16 uses prepositional meaning number 7: "very close to; at the edge of"

Post #18 uses the most common prepositional meaning of "on", which is "on top of". For liquids, we use *on* to mean "in the air, touching the top surface of the liquid" as opposed to *in* which means "(partially or completely) below the surface of the liquid".

I suspect that many languages have multiple precise definitions for a word.


----------



## zaffy

Isn't it confusing? If you hear someone spent a nice weekend in a hotel *on* the river, how do you know whether the hotel was located literally on the river or on its bank? Polish would use two different prepositons, that is "*by* the river" vs. "*on* the river".


----------



## Chasint

zaffy said:


> There seems to be lack of logic in English. I guess these buildings are *on* the river, aren't they? Or are they *in* the river?
> 
> View attachment 71792


Those buildings are very unusual in Britain. If the buildings were, let's say, a hotel. I would tell my friends, "I stayed in a hotel that floats on a river."

If the hotel was on the river bank, I would say "I stayed at a riverside hotel"


----------



## dojibear

zaffy said:


> Isn't it confusing?


No. If you are talking about where a hotel building is located, then meaning 7 ("very near") is standard. If a speaker wants to express something unusual, they will say something different. Post #21 suggests "floating on a river".

Note that a hotel "floating *on *a river" is unlikely. Only small buildings float on a river -- buildings like the ones pictured in #18 (which are not a hotel), not the larger building in #16.

Some hotels are located *over *water. They are not supported by the water. They are supported by long poles sunk into the ground beneath the water. That situation uses "over" or "above", not "on".


----------



## zaffy

Speaking of the hotel in #16, does "by the river" work or does it sound completely off?


----------



## dojibear

"By the river" works. It is probably more common to say than "on the river", in this situation.


----------



## zaffy

And does the distance to a river/lake matter when picking 'by' or 'on'? Does "on" imply a closer distance than "by"?


----------



## Uncle Jack

zaffy said:


> View attachment 71892


In general, both "by" and "on" require the building to be immediately adjacent to the river (or whatever it is). With "by the sea" ("on the sea" is not possible), a lot more flexibility is allowed. If the water in your picture is the sea, then both arrows could point to buildings that in some situations might be called "by the sea". If the water is a river, then neither of the buildings is "by the river" or "on the river". Where both "by" and "on" are possible, then there is very little difference between them, but I think "on" is far less used.


----------



## zaffy

And would there be any context in which we'd say a building was *at* a river/lake?


----------



## kentix

"On" is very commonly used here in relation to real estate. Being "on" the water, generally any kind of water, is a selling point.

A vacation house on the lake might be many people's dream. (What that means is the property line goes right down to the water.) A cabin on the river is more desirable, and more expensive, than a cabin back from the river. A restaurant on the river will likely draw more customers than a restaurant not within sight of the river, everything else being equal.


----------



## dojibear

zaffy said:


> And would there be any context in which we'd say a building was *at* a river/lake?


If the river/lake name was used as a geographical location, you could drive "to" that location, or park your car "at" that location. For example:

_Some friends of mine have a summer cabin *at *Lake Sebago _(Maine, US). There is no nearby town, so the name of the lake describes the location.

I could also use *by *in that sentence. I might even say *on*, since it is a lakefront property. So the property is "on" the lake, even though the building is only "by" or "near" the lake.

(cross-posted)


----------



## zaffy

She talked about spending a day "at the river".  Correct use?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? It would be a more sensible question if we knew what she had been doing.


----------



## zaffy

So a building can be located *on/by* a river, while people might have fun *at* a river. Correct?


----------



## Uncle Jack

What was she doing? "At" is not a particularly common preposition to use, but without knowing what she had been doing it is pointless trying to discuss the merits of "at" or "by", or even "on".


----------



## zaffy

Uncle Jack said:


> What was she doing?


She doesn't say, but I believe she was having fun, having a picnic, etc.


----------



## Roxxxannne

dojibear said:


> If the river/lake name was used as a geographical location, you could drive "to" that location, or park your car "at" that location. For example:
> 
> _Some friends of mine have a summer cabin *at *Lake Sebago _(Maine, US). There is no nearby town, so the name of the lake describes the location.
> 
> I could also use *by *in that sentence. I might even say *on*, since it is a lakefront property. So the property is "on" the lake, even though the building is only "by" or "near" the lake.
> 
> (cross-posted)


Agreed.  And also because the lake is more famous than the six towns that border it. 
Saying that your friends have a summer camp in Windham conveys nothing about their being on or near the lake.


----------



## RM1(SS)

zaffy said:


> So a building can be located *on/by* a river, while people might have fun *at* a river. Correct?


See posts 26 and 30.


----------



## zaffy

RM1(SS) said:


> See posts 26 and 30.


I did and as for buildings, all is clear to me. Yet I'm still confused about which prepostion I use when talking about humans and their activities in the vicinity of a river/lake. Take a look at these two pictures please. How can I describe them? For example,

_We had a great bonfire at/on/by a river last weekend. 
I spent the whole afternoon sitting on a blanket at/on/by a river.   _


----------



## Uncle Jack

The usual preposition for location is "by". I would not think to use anything else, but that does not mean that other prepositions aren't possible.


----------



## merquiades

zaffy said:


> _We had a great bonfire at/on/by a river last weekend.
> I spent the whole afternoon sitting on a blanket at/on/by a river.   _


"At" gives a more precise location than "by". Both work.
"On" only works if you are floating on the river.


----------



## Chasint

zaffy said:


> I did and as for buildings, all is clear to me. Yet I'm still confused about which preposition I use when talking about humans and their activities in the vicinity of a river/lake. Take a look at these two pictures please. How can I describe them? For example,
> 
> _We had a great bonfire at/on/by a river last weekend.
> I spent the whole afternoon sitting on a blanket at/on/by a river.   _


The choice of preposition depends very much on context. If you say you are "at" a location, it means that you have arrived there.

*Examples* (phone conversations)

- Where are you?
- I'm at a river (This implies that you are travelling and have reached a river - probably unexpectedly. The river may be blocking your way. You may have stopped for refreshments. You intend to leave shortly)

- Where are you?
- I'm at the river (This implies that both parties have discussed this particular river and know that it is part of a journey. In this case it could be anywhere along the route, including the final destination).

- Where are you?
- I'm on a/the river (This suggests that you are in a boat)

- Where are you?
- I'm by a river (This suggests that you have encountered a river and have decided to stay there for a while)

- Where are you?
- I'm by the river (This says that you have reached a planned destination and have a purpose there. For instance you might want to blow up a bridge or have a picnic)


----------



## a little edgy

In AE, referring to locations near bodies of water, we often use "at" to mean "in the vicinity of" and "on" to mean "directly beside". 

_He spent his vacation *at* the beach. _= He stayed at a beach resort. His hotel might or might not be directly on the beach. 
_He spent his vacation at a hotel *on* the beach._ = He stayed in a hotel that fronted directly onto the beach. In this context, "on" does not mean "built on the sand of the beach". 

The words "riverfront", "lakefront" and "oceanfront" are often used to describe a building that is directly beside the water. 

_Last night, we ate at a *lakefront* restaurant. The sunset over the water was beautiful. 

In beach resorts, *oceanfront *apartments and hotel rooms are much more desirable and expensive than those that don't face directly onto the sea. _


----------

