"We must steer land ho" "Westward Ho" "Well, I must be work ho". Could ho be a postposition preposition?
No jokes about Bertie Wooster in a brothel, please.
Open books AT page 20/ON page 20?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Open books AT page 20/ON page 20?
Andrew Patterson wrote:
"Above" is always stationery but over may imply movement. There is overlap, however. One can say hang a picture over the fireplace or above it. If you want to play safe, though you will never be wrong if you reserve "above" for stationery things and over for moving things. Above also never touches the thing underneath, "over" can, as in drive over sth.
And Nicobas wrote:
I have long been teaching the same distinction between "above" and "over" that Andrew points out. I can't say I've ever heard "above" used to indicate motion.
And Larry wrote in reply to Andrew:
If you fly above the ocean (or desert, mountain, etc.), I get the mental picture that you are flying (motion, hopefully) and the ocean is below your present position, which is to say in this case, I suppose, closer to the core of the Earth and on a direct line from you to the center of Earth. The point is, above does not seem always to be used for stationary things. And even one example to the contrary indicates to me that the "rule" is bogus, and should not be used.
(By the way, how do you combine quotes from several different posts in one reply, without losing the post one is writing as you go to retrieve each one?
)
Anyway, this is just of the top of my head and I don’t have sufficient evidence to say that Andrew and Nicholas are either right or wrong in what they say, but I thought I’d throw in the following few examples. Personally, I suspect that what they assert is probably true. Whether ‘above’ or ‘over’ is appropriate in a given instance, I think, has to do with the possible range of meaning of the accompanying verb. Certain verbs of motion seem to allow for the possibility of ‘continuous motion within a given location’ (e.g., leap, climb, circle [necessarily], rise, speed [?], hurtle [?], shoot [this motion, like ‘climb’ can be perpendicular, and so remain stationary in terms of the location named]), while others do not appear to allow this (at least in combination with the two prepositions we are discussing, but note ‘run on the spot’), (e.g., career, run, troop, bolt, take off, hurry.)
Dolphins were leaping above the water
*Dolphins were leaping over the water
? The dolphin leapt above the rock.
The dolphin leapt over the rock
The flames climbed above the roof
The flames climbed over the roof
The flames rose above the roof
The flames rose over the roof
The flames shot above the roof
The flames shot over the roof
Jet fighters circled above the city
Jet fighters circled over the city
? Jet fighters hurtled above the city
Jet fighters hurtled over the city
? Jet fighters sped above the city
Jet fighters sped over the city
Most boats travel above the water, but submarines …
*They traveled above the desert
They traveled over the desert
but: They traveled above the desert in a light helicopter [This is similar to the example above concerning boats vs submarines]
*They wandered above the bridge
[unless you mean ‘upstream of the bridge’]
They wandered over the bridge
*The car careered above the road
The car careered over the road
*He ran above the road
He ran over the road
*He ran above the toad
He ran over the toad
[Here ‘run over’ is a phrasal verb, i.e., a single lexical unit, whereas, so far as I know, there is no single lexical unit, *‘run above’]
*John backed/ reversed the car into the driveway
John backed the car into the driveway
*The horse bolted above the paddock
The horse bolted over the paddock
As I said, these are just off the top of my head, so I won’t be TOO surprised if someone can refute my contention. However, if you accept that the question of whether 'above' or 'over' can be used is a function of the accompanying verb-of-motion's range of meanings, then the point that Andrew and Nicobas make holds up, I think.
Cheers,
Terry
"Above" is always stationery but over may imply movement. There is overlap, however. One can say hang a picture over the fireplace or above it. If you want to play safe, though you will never be wrong if you reserve "above" for stationery things and over for moving things. Above also never touches the thing underneath, "over" can, as in drive over sth.
And Nicobas wrote:
I have long been teaching the same distinction between "above" and "over" that Andrew points out. I can't say I've ever heard "above" used to indicate motion.
And Larry wrote in reply to Andrew:
If you fly above the ocean (or desert, mountain, etc.), I get the mental picture that you are flying (motion, hopefully) and the ocean is below your present position, which is to say in this case, I suppose, closer to the core of the Earth and on a direct line from you to the center of Earth. The point is, above does not seem always to be used for stationary things. And even one example to the contrary indicates to me that the "rule" is bogus, and should not be used.
(By the way, how do you combine quotes from several different posts in one reply, without losing the post one is writing as you go to retrieve each one?
)Anyway, this is just of the top of my head and I don’t have sufficient evidence to say that Andrew and Nicholas are either right or wrong in what they say, but I thought I’d throw in the following few examples. Personally, I suspect that what they assert is probably true. Whether ‘above’ or ‘over’ is appropriate in a given instance, I think, has to do with the possible range of meaning of the accompanying verb. Certain verbs of motion seem to allow for the possibility of ‘continuous motion within a given location’ (e.g., leap, climb, circle [necessarily], rise, speed [?], hurtle [?], shoot [this motion, like ‘climb’ can be perpendicular, and so remain stationary in terms of the location named]), while others do not appear to allow this (at least in combination with the two prepositions we are discussing, but note ‘run on the spot’), (e.g., career, run, troop, bolt, take off, hurry.)
Dolphins were leaping above the water
*Dolphins were leaping over the water
? The dolphin leapt above the rock.
The dolphin leapt over the rock
The flames climbed above the roof
The flames climbed over the roof
The flames rose above the roof
The flames rose over the roof
The flames shot above the roof
The flames shot over the roof
Jet fighters circled above the city
Jet fighters circled over the city
? Jet fighters hurtled above the city
Jet fighters hurtled over the city
? Jet fighters sped above the city
Jet fighters sped over the city
Most boats travel above the water, but submarines …
*They traveled above the desert
They traveled over the desert
but: They traveled above the desert in a light helicopter [This is similar to the example above concerning boats vs submarines]
*They wandered above the bridge
[unless you mean ‘upstream of the bridge’]
They wandered over the bridge
*The car careered above the road
The car careered over the road
*He ran above the road
He ran over the road
*He ran above the toad
He ran over the toad
[Here ‘run over’ is a phrasal verb, i.e., a single lexical unit, whereas, so far as I know, there is no single lexical unit, *‘run above’]
*John backed/ reversed the car into the driveway
John backed the car into the driveway
*The horse bolted above the paddock
The horse bolted over the paddock
As I said, these are just off the top of my head, so I won’t be TOO surprised if someone can refute my contention. However, if you accept that the question of whether 'above' or 'over' can be used is a function of the accompanying verb-of-motion's range of meanings, then the point that Andrew and Nicobas make holds up, I think.
Cheers,
Terry
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Re: Open books AT page 20/ON page 20?
You'll need to manually type in [quote="whoever" close square brackets, cut and paste in the relevant guff, then type [/quote] each time. You don't need to enter a name every time (if it is clear to whom you are referring) for the quote highlighting to work, just quote followed by /quote works fine.terrylei wrote:(By the way, how do you combine quotes from several different posts in one reply, without losing the post one is writing as you go to retrieve each one?
Have you had a look at the Macmillan English Dictionary? It has two guidance boxes at "above":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above can be used in the following ways:
as a preposition (followed by a noun): The birds were flying high above the trees.
as an adverb (without a following noun): She stared up at the stars above.
as an adjective: Please reply to the above address.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both above and over can be used to mean "at a higher level than something": the light above/over the door.
Use above when something is not directly over something else: on the hillside above the river.
Use over when something moves or stretches across the space above something: flying over Miami; the bridge over the river.
Use over when something covers something else: She put a scarf over her hair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of completion, here is the stuff at "over":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over can be used in the following ways:
as a preposition (followed by a noun or a pronoun): a bridge over the river; Two men were fighting over her. (followed by a number or amount): It happened over a hundred years ago.
as an adverb (without a following noun): He fell over and broke his arm.
after the verb "to be": The semester will be over soon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think of the MED's guidance here?
Open books AT page 20/ON page 20?
Hi Duncan,
First, thanks for telling me how to use the ‘quote’ feature.
I have to confess to feeling some embarrassment about my post. Looking over the post again, I find I did not really make myself very clear. In fact, I wrote it fairly quickly and maybe got a little muddled by the time I got to the end. One should always read over what one has written before posting, and I’m afraid I didn’t on this occasion. Anyway …
Larry seemed to be disagreeing with the validity of Andrew’s ‘rule’ that ‘above is always stationery’, and my point was that I thought Larry might be wrong here, that some of these verbs (when used with ‘above’) seem to have the sense of ‘movement within a location’, rather than ‘movement from a location to a location’, and that the location is stationary (or unchanging) in the case of the former type.
I am not certain now that my term ‘verbs of motion’ was the correct one to use for verbs, which, at least sometimes, imply ‘motion from one location to another’ vs simply ‘motion’.
Anyway, my intuition is that some of these verbs (which, at least, sometimes imply ‘motion from one location to another’) take on a special sense when they are used with ‘above’. That is, the special sense of ‘movement, or travel, WITHIN a specified static location.’ Some verbs, such as ‘fly’ seem to allow this particular sense (e.g., ‘The flag flew above the building’, and Larry’s ‘the plane flew above the ocean’), while others do not, I think – at least not with the preposition ‘above’ (e.g., ‘the horse bolted above the road’ is preposterous, whereas ‘the horse bolted over the road’ is OK).
Oddly, some verbs of the latter type imply a static location when used with other prepositions, even though they don’t with ‘above’, e.g., ‘run on the spot’. But surely, this is a purely semantic matter. As Andrew points out, ‘above also never touches the thing underneath’; ‘running’ usually is performed on a surface of some kind, whereas ‘flying’ specifically implies no contact with any surface.
So, finally, I believe that Andrew’s explanation of ‘above’ can stand, if we make a distinction between ‘movement from a location to a location’ and ‘movement or travel within a location, where the location is stationary’ – ‘unchanging’ might be a better term than ‘stationary’.
(Actually, it has just occurred to me that, if it's not correct to say that the location of the movement is stationary (i.e., if it's unchanging or static, not stationary), I guess this could invalidate all that I've suggested.)
You asked what I thought of the MED's guidance on ‘above’. I’m not sure what you were getting at here, but anyway, I don’t see anything to quarrel with in their description of when it can be used as a preposition, an adverb, or an adjective. For the rest of it:
“Both above and over can be used to mean "at a higher level than something": the light above/over the door.” (MED)
(This seems correct to me.)
”Use above when something is not directly over something else: on the hillside above the river.” (MED)
(My feeling is that ‘over’ could also be used here, at least in my own Australian dialect, e.g., ‘on the hillside over the river.’ So, I don’t think it matters whether something is directly over something or not directly over something. At least for my own form of English, I think this latter rule could be scrapped. ‘He works in an office over Adelaide Street’/ ‘He works in an office above Adelaide Street’ seem quite equivalent to me, and the office might be in a building overlooking Adelaide Street, or actually suspended over Adelaide Street. Are there any other Aussies out there who could corroborate this, or refute it, whichever?)
”Use over when something moves or stretches across the space above something: flying over Miami; the bridge over the river.” (MED)
(Can the preposition ‘above’ be used to adequately explain the meaning of ‘over’, since ‘above’, as Andrew has already pointed out, does not permit contact with whatever is below? In view of this, would it not be more correct to say, “Use over when something moves or stretches across the space above something, or across the upper surface of something”?)
”Use over when something covers something else: She put a scarf over her hair.” (MED)
(This seems correct to me.)
I don’t know if these were the sorts of comments you were looking for from me. Duncan. Or is it that I’m being particularly obtuse and not catching on to something that you’re trying to show me?
Cheers,
Terry
First, thanks for telling me how to use the ‘quote’ feature.
I have to confess to feeling some embarrassment about my post. Looking over the post again, I find I did not really make myself very clear. In fact, I wrote it fairly quickly and maybe got a little muddled by the time I got to the end. One should always read over what one has written before posting, and I’m afraid I didn’t on this occasion. Anyway …
Larry seemed to be disagreeing with the validity of Andrew’s ‘rule’ that ‘above is always stationery’, and my point was that I thought Larry might be wrong here, that some of these verbs (when used with ‘above’) seem to have the sense of ‘movement within a location’, rather than ‘movement from a location to a location’, and that the location is stationary (or unchanging) in the case of the former type.
I am not certain now that my term ‘verbs of motion’ was the correct one to use for verbs, which, at least sometimes, imply ‘motion from one location to another’ vs simply ‘motion’.
Anyway, my intuition is that some of these verbs (which, at least, sometimes imply ‘motion from one location to another’) take on a special sense when they are used with ‘above’. That is, the special sense of ‘movement, or travel, WITHIN a specified static location.’ Some verbs, such as ‘fly’ seem to allow this particular sense (e.g., ‘The flag flew above the building’, and Larry’s ‘the plane flew above the ocean’), while others do not, I think – at least not with the preposition ‘above’ (e.g., ‘the horse bolted above the road’ is preposterous, whereas ‘the horse bolted over the road’ is OK).
Oddly, some verbs of the latter type imply a static location when used with other prepositions, even though they don’t with ‘above’, e.g., ‘run on the spot’. But surely, this is a purely semantic matter. As Andrew points out, ‘above also never touches the thing underneath’; ‘running’ usually is performed on a surface of some kind, whereas ‘flying’ specifically implies no contact with any surface.
So, finally, I believe that Andrew’s explanation of ‘above’ can stand, if we make a distinction between ‘movement from a location to a location’ and ‘movement or travel within a location, where the location is stationary’ – ‘unchanging’ might be a better term than ‘stationary’.
(Actually, it has just occurred to me that, if it's not correct to say that the location of the movement is stationary (i.e., if it's unchanging or static, not stationary), I guess this could invalidate all that I've suggested.)
You asked what I thought of the MED's guidance on ‘above’. I’m not sure what you were getting at here, but anyway, I don’t see anything to quarrel with in their description of when it can be used as a preposition, an adverb, or an adjective. For the rest of it:
“Both above and over can be used to mean "at a higher level than something": the light above/over the door.” (MED)
(This seems correct to me.)
”Use above when something is not directly over something else: on the hillside above the river.” (MED)
(My feeling is that ‘over’ could also be used here, at least in my own Australian dialect, e.g., ‘on the hillside over the river.’ So, I don’t think it matters whether something is directly over something or not directly over something. At least for my own form of English, I think this latter rule could be scrapped. ‘He works in an office over Adelaide Street’/ ‘He works in an office above Adelaide Street’ seem quite equivalent to me, and the office might be in a building overlooking Adelaide Street, or actually suspended over Adelaide Street. Are there any other Aussies out there who could corroborate this, or refute it, whichever?)
”Use over when something moves or stretches across the space above something: flying over Miami; the bridge over the river.” (MED)
(Can the preposition ‘above’ be used to adequately explain the meaning of ‘over’, since ‘above’, as Andrew has already pointed out, does not permit contact with whatever is below? In view of this, would it not be more correct to say, “Use over when something moves or stretches across the space above something, or across the upper surface of something”?)
”Use over when something covers something else: She put a scarf over her hair.” (MED)
(This seems correct to me.)
I don’t know if these were the sorts of comments you were looking for from me. Duncan. Or is it that I’m being particularly obtuse and not catching on to something that you’re trying to show me?
Cheers,
Terry
Last edited by terrylei on Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As a fellow Aussie (Adelaide) I have some comments to make.
"The hillside over the river" means for me "the hillside across the river (from a given standpoint)", while " the hillside above the river" is merely one overlooking the river, regardless of the commentator's standpoint.
Some of your examples for above and over don't ring true, on the basis that 'above' means 'in a stationary position, which is higher than, and not in contact with a given location'; whereas 'over' means 'in a direction across the upper part of, and fairly close to a given object'.
For me, then, to say 'the flames rose over the roof' means they enveloped the rooftop; whereas 'the flames rose above the roof' says they rose vertically to a point quite a bit higher.
Looking at your examples from this point of view, I would have to reject some of the earlier ones in the way you did towards the end with obviously inappropriate usage.
Harzer
"The hillside over the river" means for me "the hillside across the river (from a given standpoint)", while " the hillside above the river" is merely one overlooking the river, regardless of the commentator's standpoint.
Some of your examples for above and over don't ring true, on the basis that 'above' means 'in a stationary position, which is higher than, and not in contact with a given location'; whereas 'over' means 'in a direction across the upper part of, and fairly close to a given object'.
For me, then, to say 'the flames rose over the roof' means they enveloped the rooftop; whereas 'the flames rose above the roof' says they rose vertically to a point quite a bit higher.
Looking at your examples from this point of view, I would have to reject some of the earlier ones in the way you did towards the end with obviously inappropriate usage.
Harzer
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Heh, I'm not trying to show you anything, Terry, I really did just want your opinions on the MED (as it is where I am starting out from), and your comments are exactly of the sort I was looking for. Thanks!
I'll try to chip into this thread a bit more, but I need to re-read it and have a thinky first.
I'll try to chip into this thread a bit more, but I need to re-read it and have a thinky first.
Open books AT page 20/ON page 20?
I take your points here, Harzer. I think, as I re-ponder the examples I gave, that your intuitions ARE more accurate than mine for the examples on which you comment. I had totally missed the "the hillside across the river (from a given standpoint) "interpretation of ‘the hillside over the river’. It’s so easy to fool oneself when one has no other native speaker to bounce these things off. (This is my fourth year in China, during which time I’ve had almost no contact with any native speakers of English and have spoken most exclusively Chinese – not that I speak it well - whenever I’m not taking a class or with students. Nevertheless, I’m a bit shocked that my intuition here was so off-the-mark as to miss so obvious an interpretation of “the hillside over the river”. It just didn’t occur to me.)
And now I tend to think too that some of my ‘dolphin’ examples are equally far from the mark, or further. I think, perhaps, I was confusing ‘Dolphins were leaping above the water’ with something like “above the water dolphins could be seen leaping”, where ‘above the water’ is not where the dolphins are leaping to, or a space they are leaping through (but one they are leaping in). Rather, the preposition phrase indicates one of two fixed dimensions (‘fixed’ is the word I was searching for when I mentioned ‘unchanging’ in another part of what I wrote earlier – is that the same as ‘stationary’?), ‘above [the surface of] the water’ and ‘below [the surface of] the water’. I now see too, that my example, ‘? The dolphin leapt above the rock’ is nonsensical because it would imply that he then remained there in that position (–wouldn’t it?)
You’ve also reset my thinking so that I can no longer accept my own example: ‘the flames rose over the roof’ in the sense I implied. Does a similar example, ‘the mist rose over the glade’, imply that the scene was enveloped by mist? Yes, I think so (as you say). It seems to mean something like ‘to cover the glade (from view)’, which can also have the sense of ‘to envelope the glade’.
Well, if anything (and despite my own gaffs), this would tend, I think, to strengthen the case that, if movement occurs in an ‘above’ context, then it is movement ‘within a fixed location’, so that the verbs-of-motion with which ‘above’ can co-occur, would be a sub-set which do not NECESSARILY involve the notion of travel from, to, through, or across the location named to another, although they may do so in other contexts. I was thinking earlier that this was a function of the verb meaning limiting that of the preposition; but I think now it is rather a function of the preposition or adverb ‘above’ limiting the meaning of the verb. If this is the case, then are we not getting rather close to the phenomenon of phrasal verbs here? (Although, often, there is no hint left of the basic meaning of the verb in the phrasal verb).
Thanks, Harzer, for your comments.
Duncan,
I’m glad that I responded with the kind of comments you were seeking. From your little (indicated) chuckle at the beginning of your last post, I can see that you figured I was a little nervous that I was walking into a trap, where I would display my profound ignorance perhaps. You were right. It did indeed cross my mind. Well, even if it had been, I would probably have learnt something worthwhile (and have had enough egg on my face to be set for breakfast tomorrow, no doubt).
Nice to have your encouragement, Nicholas. Thanks. (I’d love to go to Argentina one of these days.)
Cheers,
Terry
And now I tend to think too that some of my ‘dolphin’ examples are equally far from the mark, or further. I think, perhaps, I was confusing ‘Dolphins were leaping above the water’ with something like “above the water dolphins could be seen leaping”, where ‘above the water’ is not where the dolphins are leaping to, or a space they are leaping through (but one they are leaping in). Rather, the preposition phrase indicates one of two fixed dimensions (‘fixed’ is the word I was searching for when I mentioned ‘unchanging’ in another part of what I wrote earlier – is that the same as ‘stationary’?), ‘above [the surface of] the water’ and ‘below [the surface of] the water’. I now see too, that my example, ‘? The dolphin leapt above the rock’ is nonsensical because it would imply that he then remained there in that position (–wouldn’t it?)
You’ve also reset my thinking so that I can no longer accept my own example: ‘the flames rose over the roof’ in the sense I implied. Does a similar example, ‘the mist rose over the glade’, imply that the scene was enveloped by mist? Yes, I think so (as you say). It seems to mean something like ‘to cover the glade (from view)’, which can also have the sense of ‘to envelope the glade’.
Well, if anything (and despite my own gaffs), this would tend, I think, to strengthen the case that, if movement occurs in an ‘above’ context, then it is movement ‘within a fixed location’, so that the verbs-of-motion with which ‘above’ can co-occur, would be a sub-set which do not NECESSARILY involve the notion of travel from, to, through, or across the location named to another, although they may do so in other contexts. I was thinking earlier that this was a function of the verb meaning limiting that of the preposition; but I think now it is rather a function of the preposition or adverb ‘above’ limiting the meaning of the verb. If this is the case, then are we not getting rather close to the phenomenon of phrasal verbs here? (Although, often, there is no hint left of the basic meaning of the verb in the phrasal verb).
Thanks, Harzer, for your comments.
Duncan,
I’m glad that I responded with the kind of comments you were seeking. From your little (indicated) chuckle at the beginning of your last post, I can see that you figured I was a little nervous that I was walking into a trap, where I would display my profound ignorance perhaps. You were right. It did indeed cross my mind. Well, even if it had been, I would probably have learnt something worthwhile (and have had enough egg on my face to be set for breakfast tomorrow, no doubt).
Nice to have your encouragement, Nicholas. Thanks. (I’d love to go to Argentina one of these days.)
Cheers,
Terry