I can't recall any discussion in aue of the usage of "caught on fire",
vs. "caught fire", and Google doesn't find anything either.

This morning, on a local radio station, the news guy used the phrase
"caught on fire" three times during a story.

A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught fire", and 394,000
for "caught on fire".

Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?

-

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:56:14 -0600, Oleg Lego posted:

>I can't recall any discussion in aue of the usage of "caught on fire",
>vs. "caught fire", and Google doesn't find anything either.
>
>This morning, on a local radio station, the news guy used the phrase
>"caught on fire" three times during a story.
>
>A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught fire", and 394,000
>for "caught on fire".
>
>Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?

Sorry folks, this was meant for alt.usage.english

That was not spam, Brian. It was a misdirected post.

Spam has a very specific set of meanings, and just being unrelated to
the newsgroup discussions is not included in that set of meanings.

"Oleg Lego" <rat@atatatat.com> wrote in message
>>
>>A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught fire", and 394,000
>>for "caught on fire".
>>
>>Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?
>
> Sorry folks, this was meant for alt.usage.english
>

Now that you brought it up, please return and let us know what the
definitive answer is. My guess is it "caught fire" and once it did, it was
"on fire".

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:39:23 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski posted:

>
>"Oleg Lego" <rat@atatatat.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught fire", and 394,000
>>>for "caught on fire".
>>>
>>>Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?
>>
>> Sorry folks, this was meant for alt.usage.english
>>
>
>Now that you brought it up, please return and let us know what the
>definitive answer is. My guess is it "caught fire" and once it did, it was
>"on fire".

For the most part, "caught fire" is what the folks on that newsgroup
would say, but "caught on fire" is common enough to have achieved some
legitimacy. Such is the way of English.

Hmmm what the hell differance does it make whether it " caught fire" or "
caught on fire " ? by the time it gets done burning what ever it was aint
gonna be worth a damn anyways !!

']['unes

--
Never hold in your farts ! They go straight up your spine
into your brain and thats where shitty ideas come from


"Oleg Lego" <rat@atatatat.com> wrote in message
news:lutfb3d4dnps494jughamnjshrmlfegbfj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:39:23 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski posted:
>
>>
>>"Oleg Lego" <rat@atatatat.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught fire", and 394,000
>>>>for "caught on fire".
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?
>>>
>>> Sorry folks, this was meant for alt.usage.english
>>>
>>
>>Now that you brought it up, please return and let us know what the
>>definitive answer is. My guess is it "caught fire" and once it did, it
>>was
>>"on fire".
>
> For the most part, "caught fire" is what the folks on that newsgroup
> would say, but "caught on fire" is common enough to have achieved some
> legitimacy. Such is the way of English.
>
>

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:30:26 -0700, ']['unez posted:

>Hmmm what the hell differance does it make whether it " caught fire" or "
>caught on fire " ? by the time it gets done burning what ever it was aint
>gonna be worth a damn anyways !!

The newsgroup for which the post was intended, takes a great interest
in the usage of words and phrases in English. I only posted the result
at Edwin's request.

> GUEST wrote:
> I can't recall any discussion in aue of the usage of "caught
on fire",
> vs. "caught fire", and Google doesn't find anything
either.
>
> This morning, on a local radio station, the news guy used the
phrase
> "caught on fire" three times during a story.
>
> A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught
fire", and 394,000
> for "caught on fire".
>
> Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?

So which is
correct or what does this phrase mean?

"I couldn't care less" or "I could care less."

Do they both have the same meaning?

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:17:19 -0500, southluke posted:

>
> > GUEST wrote:
> > I can't recall any discussion in aue of the usage of "caught
>on fire",
> > vs. "caught fire", and Google doesn't find anything
>either.
> >
> > This morning, on a local radio station, the news guy used the
>phrase
> > "caught on fire" three times during a story.
> >
> > A Google search yields 1.8 million hits for "caught
>fire", and 394,000
> > for "caught on fire".
> >
> > Does anyone here find it normal or acceptable?
>
>So which is
>correct or what does this phrase mean?
>
>"I couldn't care less" or "I could care less."
>
>Do they both have the same meaning?

There has been a lot of discussion about these on alt.english.usage. I
would suggest searching with Google or dropping over to aue and asking
there, where it is on-topic.