I have always thought that "He ran over her" was proper. "He ran her over" has always grated, but I see it all the time. Which is correct?
Considering that "over" is a preposition, and that we are taught never to end a sentence with a preposition (and I'm aware the 'rule' isn't really a rule) it seems that "running over him" might be considered a more educated form.Becca Mills said:My *guess* is that the two idioms are geographically distributed, and that neither is incorrect.
I thought the same as this and Ruair has voiced it well. It's subtle, but "he ran her over" does suggest intent.Ruairí said:I, too, am interested in the responses. Both seem correct to me:
"He ran over her" feels like he made a mistake. He ran over her in the intersection.
"He ran her over" feels like he had intent. He ran her over in a fit of rage.
I think I watched too many episodes of Forensic Files.
Cheers,
Ruairi
"He ran her over with his jeep."brkingsolver said:Considering that "over" is a preposition, and that we are taught never to end a sentence with a preposition
Maybe, in both cases, the preposition and object are pretty much part of the verb? That is, the verb is either "to run someone over" or "to run over someone," because "to run," without the preposition, and "to run over," without the object, don't mean the same thing, or don't necessarily mean the same thing (you can run over to someone's house, for instance, or run over a bridge).brkingsolver said:Considering that "over" is a preposition, and that we are taught never to end a sentence with a preposition (and I'm aware the 'rule' isn't really a rule) it seems that "running over him" might be considered a more educated form.
Oh yeah? What about the rule about never ending a sentence with a Jeep? (It's just as good a rule, really.)Linn said:"He ran her over with his jeep."
Crisis averted.
They're called phrasal verbs.Becca Mills said:Maybe, in both cases, the preposition and object are pretty much part of the verb? That is, the verb is either "to run someone over" or "to run over someone," because "to run," without the preposition, and "to run over," without the object, don't mean the same thing, or don't necessarily mean the same thing (you can run over to someone's house, for instance, or run over a bridge).
Thank you! Second new thing I've learned today.Paranormal Kitty said:They're called phrasal verbs.
I stand corrected.Becca Mills said:Oh yeah? What about the rule about never ending a sentence with a Jeep? (It's just as good a rule, really.)
I think the Rapier model Jeep is only sold in Colorado. It is spindly, and light, but deadly when driven off a cliff.Linn said:I stand corrected.
How about these:
He ran him through with his rapier.
He ran through him with his rapier.
I suppose both could be correct, but one of them sounds more likely than the other.
Lol ... English is so intensely idiomatic, isn't it?Linn said:I stand corrected.
How about these:
He ran him through with his rapier.
He ran through him with his rapier.
I suppose both could be correct, but one of them sounds more likely than the other.
I'm so glad I'm not an ESL writer.Becca Mills said:Lol ... English is so intensely idiomatic, isn't it?
True. But, when a football player plows over one of his opponents, he is sometimes said to have run right through him, even though he didn't actually pass through his body.Puddleduck said:Except that when you run someone through with a rapier, you are not yourself also running through their body. If you run someone over in your car, you're inside the car, which is on top of the person, so you are also, yourself, physically running over them.
I thought the same.The Bass Bagwhan said:I thought the same as this and Ruair has voiced it well. It's subtle, but "he ran her over" does suggest intent.