Re: Re: [Lingo] 経由地

["Jim Breen" <jimbreen@example.com>]

On 20/10/2007, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
> David J Iannucci writes:
>
>  > >> "transit point"?
>  > > Thanks.
>  > >
>  > > I don't know if "via point" is correct?
>  >
>  > No, I've never heard "via point".
>  >
>  > I'll put in a second for "transit", although it feels a bit unnatural to
>  > me to use a phrase like "transit point". Maybe "transit airport". The
>  > most natural feeling is to say something like "the flight transits
>  > through dokodoko".
>
> FWIW, I can't recall any of these terms being used.  Both "transit"
> and "via" lack connotations of changing flights, and transit point
> would most naturally be translated as "stop" (as in "nonstop flight").
> Where a plane change was involved, I'd use "connection point" or
> "connection airport" or (most likely) just "connection".  In natural
> language (as opposed to airline timetable) I'd say "with a plane
> change at" (although I've been on "flights" with a scheduled plane
> change within a flight number).

I have added "connection airport" to the protoype entry:
経由地 [けいゆち] /(n) transit point/transit airport/connection airport/

> Note that "transit" doesn't imply a stop at all, and the connotation
> of a stop is not necessary to "via" (as in "I commute to Santa Cruz
> via Rt. 17 twice a week").

Yes, but if it's an airport it does imply a stop; otherwise it's
rather meaningless.

Cheers

Jim

-- 
Jim Breen
Honorary Senior Research Fellow
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/