Kindle Forum banner

Proper grammar/word usage

1K views 21 replies 14 participants last post by  Jan Hurst-Nicholson 
#1 ·
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?
 
#3 ·
My *guess* is that the two idioms are geographically distributed, and that neither is incorrect.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 
#5 ·
Becca Mills said:
My *guess* is that the two idioms are geographically distributed, and that neither is incorrect.
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.
 
#6 ·
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
I thought the same as this and Ruair has voiced it well. It's subtle, but "he ran her over" does suggest intent.
 
#8 ·
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.
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).

Linn said:
"He ran her over with his jeep."

Crisis averted. :)
Oh yeah? What about the rule about never ending a sentence with a Jeep? (It's just as good a rule, really.) ;D
 
#9 ·
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).
They're called phrasal verbs.
 
#10 ·
Paranormal Kitty said:
They're called phrasal verbs.
Thank you! Second new thing I've learned today. :)
 
#12 ·
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 think the Rapier model Jeep is only sold in Colorado. It is spindly, and light, but deadly when driven off a cliff.

He drove his Jeep Rapier off a cliff.
He drove off a cliff in his Jeep Rapier.

Yeah, one form definitely has intent.

Cheers,
Ruairi
 
#13 ·
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?
 
#15 ·
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.
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. :eek:
 
#16 ·
Both are fine. "Her" in both contexts is the direct object of the phrasal verb "to run over." Stylistically, I'd probably go with "run over her" to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition. Doing so isn't wrong by any means, but some readers still think that's a hard and fast grammar rule and may whine about it in a review blasting your bad "grammar."
 
#18 ·
You see it all the time? Yikes, what town do you live in with such rampant and oddly sexist hit-and-runs appearing in the local paper all the time?

(Can't confirm which one is "proper"--if one of them even is over the other--but the latter flows so much better to me)
 
#19 ·
Which is correct? It depends upon what you meant.

'He ran her over', implies that the 'he' used a machine of some sort and contact was made -- as in the previously mentioned 'He ran her over with his jeep'. It could, I suppose, be used if he, personally (and not with a machine), ran her over by hitting her, knocking her down and tromping on her with his Size 12s, but in any case, contact would have been made.

However, if he was physically running -- i.e. putting one foot in front of the other repeatedly -- and she was lying down on the grass, he could run over her without actually touching her. And you would, therefore, say, 'He ran over her," and not 'He ran her over'. Likewise, if the jeep ran over her and didn't touch her, you could say he ran over her, but 'he ran her over' wouldn't fit because no contact had been made.

e.g.

"He ran over her with his jeep."

"How is she?"

"Fine. She got lucky and the jeep didn't touch her."

Whereas.

"He ran her over with his jeep."

"How is she?"

"Lucky to be alive. Two broken legs."

Common usage says that 'He ran over her' is correct for both contact and non-contact, but I don't think you can use 'He ran her over' for non-contact.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it -- even in the unlikely event of overwhelming evidence that I'm absolutely wrong surfacing.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top