what is the difference

bubu   Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:26 am GMT

What is the difference between:

Australia is in the south
Australia is at the south
Australia is on the south

Thank you.
B-radG   Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:47 am GMT
The thing I know for sure is that "Australia is in the south" is the correct phrase to use. Also, when you say "Australia is on the south", it makes it sound as if you mean "on top of". If you said that to someone, they'd look at you like - 0_o - that. "Australia is at the south" is wrong as well. It sounds weird I know, as the English language has a lot of wierd rules too it, but you can't say a place is at a place. You can say a person is at a place, and a thing is at a place, but you can't say a place is at a place. It's one of the many unusual rules of the English language ...
Uriel   Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:58 am GMT
B-radG is right, you can only say Australia is in the south. The others don't work.

Just to confuse you more, though, bubu, you can also use "to" sometimes, especially if it's in reference to another landmark: "Australia is to the south of New Guinea."