Do simple spatial terms such as in or on map directly to intuitive physical judgements about spatial relationships between objects that underlie these terms’ meaning? We explored this question in the domain of physical support. Adults (N=120) and 4-year-old children (N=42) were shown videos in which a puppet placed an L-shaped object in contact with a table at locations that varied in whether the object was supported or not. Half of the participants were asked for linguistic judgments (“Is X on Y?”) and half were asked for intuitive physics judgments (“Will X fall if (agent) lets go?”). Results revealed that linguistic judgments were largely categorical, with child and adult participants labeling objects as on even when the object was not truly supported. In contrast, intuitive physics judgments aligned closely with the object’s actual possibility of true support. However, responses also varied by the orientation of the L-shaped object, with on applying categorically to a regularly oriented L, but in a more graded fashion for a mirror image oriented L. Our findings suggest that the mapping between the simple spatial term on and physical reasoning systems are not completely coupled, and that the ways in which language draws on intuitive physical reasoning is complex.