Why do most languages seem to not distinguish on, in, at?

Why do most languages seem to not distinguish on, in, at?

Attached: 1577114763490.png (726x720, 72.26K)

In and at is the same thing you baboon

In Spanish it's all "en". If you really want to denote containment, there's "dentro de", but "en" does the job too.

un lingua merda

In=Inside something
At=around something

>i'm in the bus stop
>i'm at my backyard
just a couple of examples that don't sound right

Because they are unnecessarily specific most of the time.

>i'm in the parking lot
>i'm at the park
they're basically the same

yeah there are some examples that are interchangeable, but not all are, and it's subtle differences like that which will expose someone as ESL

italian is weird with this to.
you have "in" and "a" but they're used differently than in english. really just goes to show you how arbitrary the words are.

Seems unnecessary desu
I think the difference between ser and estar is more important.

only bc they hit the ear wrong, not because they convey any type of grammatical significance that actually changes the meaning of the phrase.
"at" is a useless preposition

I keep seeing fellow Mexicans spew the most retarded shit. How the fuck is that not important? Also, thats the question? To be or not to be.

"I'm at the lake" vs. "I'm in the lake"

you could also classify 'the' or 'is' as useless, but if you omit them then it will sound weird, so that is their purpose
also this

sur, dans, à

why do most languages seem to not distinguish inclusive and exclusive second person?

>I'm at the lake
But that still doesn't mean anything. Literally, you are near the lake. Or on the lake's shore. Or in the "Smith Park" or whatever the larger geographic area is called that you're incorrectly referring to as the lake.
something sounding weird doesn't make it not useless. it just means you aren't accustomed to it. like the letter "C." In the English language it does a job that both K and S already do.
But just because it's look odd to write "I kaught a kold" "sircular pieses of kake" doesn't make the letter C have any real value.
>is
"is" is the present tense conjugation of the verb "to be." It is one of the most important words in the language. Which is why it's a concept in every single language.

>Why yes, my languages does indeed use prepositions, how could you tell?

Attached: 1575339126710.png (600x800, 9.55K)

>Which is why it's a concept in every single language
its not though

na, em, nessa

there is no 'is' in russian and i'm assuming many other slavic and even non-slavic languages, we could do without it, but what would be the point, you'd be trading the character and personality and history of the language for some negligible efficiency.

on = sobre
in = adentro
at = en

En works for all, really, what's so specially about it?

>you'd be trading the character and personality and history of the language for some negligible efficiency.
ah yes, when people ask me about the most historically important word in the english language, the word "is" is the first one to come to mind

im talking about the general idea of stripping a language bear in the name of efficiency. imagine getting rid of gender for example.

>imagine getting rid of gender for example
you mean like english did?
sorry to break this to you buddy, but "stripping a language bear in the name of efficiency" is something humans have been doing unconsciously for as long as they've been able to sleep. if english loses "is", it loses "is". nobody chose to make it disappear, it just went away without anyone noticing.

long as they've been able *to speak, l'm retarded

una lengua de mierda*
git gud

fpbp

Is that really the case? They seem like pretty basic words

>it's subtle differences like that which will expose someone as ESL
same with case suffixes in finnish

Attached: Screenshot_2020-05-17_07-44-03.png (621x559, 56.65K)