Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt Post by Jerry Friedman
There seems to be an increasing use of "located" in expressions of place.
At one forum I read, people posting photos are asked to say where they
were taken. Somebody posted a series of photos captioned with obscure
American place names that omitted the state. Someone else commented,
"Clueless where these locations are located."
You have a very strange idea of the meaning of 'evidence'. In terms
of statistical significance that's basically a flat line and the projected
tendency is downward. What the relevance of 'is at' in comparison
might be I cannot fathom. You do realise that that includes such
phrases as 'is at the end of his tether', 'is at a loss' and many more
where 'located at' simply is not synonymous?
This is all the more silly because the simple n-gram for 'is located'
does support your observation and quite markedly so.
That might result from an increase in the corpus in talking about where
things are. If "is located" increased by a factor of two and other
locative phrases such as "is at" increased by a factor of four, then "is
located" would be decreasing compared to the alternative ways of saying
the same thing. Possibly plotting the ratio would have made that more
You may well be right that other uses of "is at" are making the increase
less obvious. Here's a plot of the ratio I just mentioned and that
between "is north" and "is located north".
The more recent decrease that you point out also becomes clearer. Maybe
the day of "where these locations are located" is coming to an
end--though the data only go to 2008.
Didn't I read somewhere that the default endpoint for ngram plots is
2000 because the GB corpus changed around that year? Previously it had
been what university librarians decided to scan, but publishers started
putting their books at GB on limited preview.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
This is not
terribly surprising though as the technical language of map-reading
has inevitably become more mainstream with the advent of digital
maps, GPS and so on.
Are you telling me that "is located" is part of the technical language
of map-reading? I haven't taken part in technical discussions of
map-reading. I don't recall seeing that use of located on Google Maps
or Mapquest, the digital maps I've used. I don't have much experience
And if I want to find out where Parma Heights is, and get an answer in
technical language, why would I be told that it's located in
northeastern Ohio or at such and such a latitude and longitude or
whatever, instead of the same phrases without "located"?