I was editing my post when you replied. I just wanted to say
This is related to a 2vs3 dimension theory by CJ and I wanted to test the theory.
Thanks, Optilang and Old Man Gordon.
Old Man Gordon, I don't see why in your example, in is not capable of delivering the same message. Would you mind explaining?
I don't think Old Man Gordaon is saying that you can't use on - he feels that in is more common. I know that either works fine - maybe it's just a question of geography that determines which is more common
Because 'in' is the usual way, 'on' is only used to emphasize that the car is not 'off' of the driveway.
In gives the area, while on emphasizes the material on which you should park. This distinction is also clear in the following. He is walking in the yard. He is walking on the grass. The same idea works: in emphasizes area, on emphasizes material.
Yes. Your explanation matches CJ's. Thanks for reminding me, Gordon.
Yes, but the point is that you can use either in the driveway or on the driveway You do not walk on the yard you do not walk in the grass (unless it's long grass!)
This is related to a 2vs3 dimension theory by CJ and I wanted to test the theory.
Thanks, Optilang and Old Man Gordon.
Old Man Gordon, I don't see why in your example, in is not capable of delivering the same message.
Would you mind explaining?
I know that either works fine - maybe it's just a question of geography that determines which is more common
In gives the area, while on emphasizes the material on which you should park. This distinction is also clear in the following. He is walking in the yard. He is walking on the grass. The same idea works: in emphasizes area, on emphasizes material.
You do not walk on the yard you do not walk in the grass (unless it's long grass!)