At the Summit/On the Summit/In the Summit

[Jorgo]

If we reffer the Summit as a political gathering of the heads of the states, wich preposition should be used with that?

"At/On/In the Summit we will have fruitful discussion"
"Leaders of the EU at/on/in the Summit will have...."
"Who knows what will happen at/on/in the Summit?"

I know that if we are talking about the peak of the mountain, maybe "at" or "on" would be the most convenient prepositions to be used, but I am not sure that the same works in this case.

Thanks in advance!

 

[jutfrank]

If we reffer the Summit as a political gathering of the heads of the states, wich preposition should be used with that?

If we use summit to mean 'a political gathering of Heads of State', which preposition is appropriate?

Use at, as you normally would with events like this.

• at the meeting/conference/party

Of course, this use has nothing to do with mountaintops!

 

[GoesStation]

I've always thought the usage derived from an analogy with peaks, where the most powerful people in government are those who are at the metaphorical summit of influence.

 

[jutfrank]

I've always thought the usage derived from an analogy with peaks, where the most powerful people in government are those who are at the metaphorical summit of influence.

From etymonline.com:

summit (n.)

c. 1400, "highest point, peak," from Middle French somete, from Old French somete "summit, top," diminutive of som, sum "highest part, top of a hill," from Latin summum, neuter of noun use of summus "highest," related to super "over" (from PIE root *uper "over"). The meaning "meeting of heads of state" (1950) is from Winston Churchill's metaphor of "a parley at the summit."

 

[Rover_KE]

Jorgo, did you notice from the above replies that it's incorrect to capitalise 'summit'?

 

[emsr2d2]

If we [STRIKE]reffer[/STRIKE] refer to [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] a summit [STRIKE]as[/STRIKE] (a political gathering of [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] heads of [STRIKE]the states[/STRIKE] state), [STRIKE]wich[/STRIKE] which preposition should be used with [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] it?

See my corrections above.

 

[teechar]

it's incorrect to capitalise 'summit'?

Except when it's part of a title.
For example:

We reached the summit of that mountain after only two days of climbing. [Here, "summit" is an ordinary noun, so it should not be capitalized.]

The World Summit took place in an atmosphere of great hope and anticipation. [Here, we capitalize it because it is part of a title.]

 

[Jorgo]

Yes, sorry for my belated reply. I thought so too, to use preposition "at" with "summit", but my interlocutor replied several times by using preposition "on"...of course he (my interlocutor) is not native, but he lived for 10 years abroad, so his "corrections" made me precarious.

Yes, I grasped it, thank you. But if we speak about particular political gathering, for example, NATO summit (or Summit), or G7 summit (or Summit) - should I capitalize the word summit in that case?

And one more thing, just clear it out please. I noticed that you corrected my phrase "Heads of States", by replacing it with "Heads of State"(singular, state). Why did you do so? Because the summit is an event where chiefs of several states are gathered, not one? Shouldn have been more apropriate to use plural form "states" instead of "state"? Because state has only one head.....

 

[jutfrank]

But if we speak about particular political gathering, for example, NATO summit (or Summit), or G7 summit (or Summit) - should I capitalize the word summit in that case?

As Rover_KE says, you should capitalise only when the word appears as part of the name of the event. So you can say There was a Nato summit in late 2010 (where summit is a general noun) or The 2018 G7 Summit will take place in Canada (where Summit is part of the name of the event).

And one more thing, just clear it out please. I noticed that you corrected my phrase "Heads of States", by replacing it with "Heads of State"(singular, state). Why did you do so? Because the summit is an event where chiefs of several states are gathered, not one? Shouldn't have been more apropriate to use plural form "states" instead of "state"? Because state has only one head.....

If you want to make sense of this, I suggest again that you think in terms of non-capitalised general nouns and capitalised names (specifically, in this case—titles).

He's a head of a state and she's a head of a state. They are both heads of states. (two heads and two states, so two plurals)

He's Head of State and she's Head of State. They are Heads of State. (two Heads—we're just talking about two titles so we only pluralise the main word)

Note that there is usually no need for indefinite articles before titles, as there is with general nouns.