Say I live in the urban area of a small city in "the middle of nowhere", so as to say that it is far any metropolis and has a small population (say, less than 50,000 inhabitants).
Then, can I say "I live in the countryside"? Or can I only use that phrase if I live in the rural area of the city (i.e. the part where there are only dirt roads, houses/farms are very widespread from one another, mostly composed of cultivation fields etc.)? Are there more appropriate alternatives to convey what I'm trying to say?
Best Answer
I would say "I live in a provincial town".
I think what you are getting at with this question is the distinction between "an area which is mostly fields" and "a part of the country in which there are many areas which are mostly fields".
To me (a British English native speaker), "countryside" means the former. If I am in the countryside, I expect to be in a field, wood, meadow, etc. I expect there to be fields, woods, meadows, and farms as far as the eye can see. So, if I am in a town, I am definitely not in the countryside.
Whereas "provincial" is the opposite of "metropolitan". It means far from a big city, and implies being simple and unsophisticated. You can describe a person as provincial; it is not a compliment. And a town can be provincial, while still being urban.
Usefully, "provincial" doesn't simply mean "not a city". I would describe Oxford as a provincial town, because it is a long way from a big city. But I would not describe Reading as a provincial town, because it's so close to London; it's a suburban town.
(Oxford is a city in a formal sense, because it has a charter, and a cathedral, sort of. But it is a town in a geographical sense, because it is quite small.)
I should note that this use of "provincial" is a bit fancy or old-fashioned. I would not be surprised to find it in a 1950s book, an opera programme, or the Daily Telegraph. I would be more surprised to find it in the script of a modern television programme, or the Daily Mirror.