Grammar

[improperlyhuman]

Эти люди едут на автобусе.

Why is the noun in the prepositional case?

Thanks.

Comments

[liludalas.livejournal.com]

why "на автобусе"?

and what do you think is more appropriate? автобусом?
it is also possible, but meaning changes slightly.

[improperlyhuman]

I expected to see the accusative case because the other examples of going somewhere in some sort of vehicle use the accusative.

Эти люди едут на метро.

is another one I have from the same source.

[mithrilian.livejournal.com]

"why" as opposed to what?

Anyway, the question "why" is this or that is arranged a certain way in a language is not practical and the answer (usually linguistic and involving the history and development of said language) would not help you in using it.

To know why a car moves would not help you much in learning how to drive it.

Why do you "take" a bus to work? You don't take it in your hand, right? You don't take the bus with you, right? So, why do you take a bus to work? Why take?

Same thing here.

The people are inside the bus, in the bus, but they are going by bus, they are taking the bus. Люди внутри автобуса, в автобусе, но они едут автобусом, на автобусе.

[liludalas.livejournal.com]

it is absolutely the same to my mind

it's only that метро doesn't decline... it's метро in any case, either accusative or prepositional

еду на машине
еду на метро
еду на автобусе
еду на электричке...

[mithrilian.livejournal.com]

It's always "на" if the main idea is the means of transportation. It's accusative only the main idea is the location.

Люди в поезде смеялись. People in the train were laughing.
Люди ехали на поезде. People took the train.

[liludalas.livejournal.com]

ah, now got your point.

when you stress means of transportation you usually say на instead of в

because if you say я еду в метро
it means that for example you're explaining to somebody why you can't talk on the phone right now, or something

[improperlyhuman]

I should have given a less ambiguous example of why I thought the accusative was supposed to be used. I also have the example

Я еду на работу.

[improperlyhuman]

Lol, nevermind. работу is not a means of transportation, duh.

[liludalas.livejournal.com]

right, на работу is about destination
and sometimes в is also used to create this meaning

я еду на работу
я еду на выставку
я еду в гости
я еду в офис

[orie.livejournal.com]

"на метро" is also prepositional case, but it doesn't change ending, because "метро" is a foreing word for Russian, it never changes endings

[la-dy-ashley.livejournal.com]

It's the prepositional case:

На метро
на автобусе
на машине
на столе
на уроке

what confused you probably was that the word метро is unchangeable in Russian, so you mistook the form for the accusative case.

[crocotiger.livejournal.com]

My guess is this. Historically first transport was an animal. Rider was up, animal was down. So preposition 'на' was used - "на коне", "на осле", "на слоне", "на верблюде" and so on.

[huzhepidarasa.livejournal.com]

В гости is not a good example here. It's a nominative with a proposition. A rather strange beast that deserves its own topic.

[liludalas.livejournal.com]

sry, no linguistic education here

[riegel.livejournal.com]

"автобусом" is rather rare

[riegel.livejournal.com]

because it requires a preposition)

[zwilling.livejournal.com]

Don't confuse people. :) Russian changes endings in the most of borrowed words.

[anatoly borodin (from livejournal.com)]

Превратительный падеж (он же включительный) используется во фразах вроде «пошёл в космонавты» или «баллотировался в президенты». В школе нам говорили, что все падежи кроме именительного — косвенные, однако это упрощение; суть косвенности не совсем в этом. Слово ставится в один из косвенных падежей, когда оно не является подлежащим. В английском языке косвенный падеж только один, поэтому его иногда так и называют — «косвенный». Его формы отличаются от прямых только у нескольких слов (I/me, we/us, they/them и т. д.). http://ilyabirman.ru/meanwhile/2006/10/01/2/ e.g.

Sorry, don't have an English source now.