On 'on'

Ambiguity sometimes matters. “Let him have it” can (as the jury in a famous trial had to consider) be interpreted either as an encouragement to shoot a third party, or an instruction to hand over the gun to him.

The proprietors of the twelfth edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of The World advertise it with a 'quotation' from Sir Ranulph Fiennes: “ . . . by far and away the greatest book on earth”.

Two 'issues' here (I am in danger of succumbing to current jargon). First, that phrase 'on earth': it can either mean what one of the great circuses meant in their boast, 'the greatest show on earth', meaning the greatest to be found on this planet; or it could mean ‘about’ or ‘concerning the earth'.

The Times Atlas trick is to let the phrase enjoy two meanings at once: the first being the obvious but false one, the second a reasonable but less obvious one. This second usage is that to be found in Lord Emsworth’s (of Blandings Castle) favourite book Whiffle’s On the Care of the Pig; Charles Lamb’s essay On the Melancholy of Tailors; or John Milton’s poem On Shakespear.

Did this witticism originate with Sir Ranulph himself, or was it proposed by the Times Atlas publicists ?

The second 'issue' concerns 'by far and away'. This seems suspiciously like an unthinking mix of two idioms: 'by far the greatest' and 'far and away the greatest'. We don’t say 'by away', do we ?*

* I have just realised that the phrase 'by far and away' could be justified by claiming that 'by far the best' is (a)acceptable on its own; and (b) has no grammatical connection with the word away', which must (since it is acceptable in the phrase 'far and away . . .') be also acceptable on its own. Thus (runs the defence) the preposition 'by', as used in the word sequence 'by far and away' applies only to the word 'far', while 'away' is there in its own right. Still, I haven't convinced myself that Sir Ranulf has got it right.

On 'on'