He fixed his eyes onto Eban again.

[99bottles]

In the online dictionaries I have looked it up in, the term is fix one's eyes on. However, as you can see in the page below (second paragraph), the author of this book says fixed eyes onto. I see that author's point -- fixed one's eyes indicates movement, so it should be followed by onto. But I'm still not sure. So is it acceptable?

The Man Within the Temple (The Golden Mage Book Two)

Depressed and overwhelmed by learning the true meaning of her destiny as the Golden Mage as well as the major part she, along with Aidric, Keldan, and Aren, will play as foretold within the Prophecy of the Six, Allison despairs of ever picking up the pieces of her shattered life. Then to add...

books.google.gr

 

[5jj]

Yes.

 

[Tarheel]

I think the phrase indicates a steady gaze as much as or more so than movement.

 

[Phaedrus]

In the online dictionaries I have looked it up in, the term is fix one's eyes on. However, as you can see in the page below (second paragraph), the author of this book says fixed eyes onto. I see that author's point -- fixed one's eyes indicates movement, so it should be followed by onto. But I'm still not sure. So is it acceptable?

I think fix one's eyes onto gives a different meang from fix one's eyes on. One could use fix one's eyes onto in a bizarre medical context, I suppose.

Q: What did the eye surgeon have the patient fix her eyes onto?
A: He had the patient fix her eyes onto a glass plate coated with a special chemical. That was before he made his incision.

If you want to elongate the preposition on and preserve the idiomatic meaning of fix one's eyes on, I recommend using upon rather than onto: fix one's eyes upon.

 

[5jj]

One could use fix one's eyes onto in a bizarre medical context, I suppose.

So bizarre as to be very rarely used by native speakers, let alone learners.

 

[Phaedrus]

So bizarre as to be very rarely used by native speakers, let alone learners.

I can't imagine any native speaker using the phrase you endorsed. The idiomatic phrase is not fix one's eyes onto. That is incorrect. It is fix ones eyes (up)on.

 

[5jj]

I would almost certainly use only 'on' myself, but a Google search reveals that quite a few native speakers do use 'onto'.

 

[Phaedrus]

I would almost certainly use only 'on' myself, but a Google search reveals that quite a few native speakers do use 'onto'.

They err because onto gives a physical-contact meaning that is not intended. Varying the verb, consider the difference between these:

He's been hooked on trees. [He studies them night and day.]
He's been hooked onto trees. [I'm not sure who did it to him.]

 

[5jj]

They err because onto gives a physical-contact meaning that is not intended.

I found many examples where no physical contact is implied or inferred. Here are just three'

With difficulty he turned onto his back and fixed his eyes onto the blue sky above him.
Two hours later, they returned triumphant, and the boy fixed his eyes onto Larry’s painting again.
From the moment he fixed his eyes onto mine, on the day he was born, I have been drowning in those pools of wisdom.

 

[Tdol]

I would almost certainly use only 'on' myself, but a Google search reveals that quite a few native speakers do use 'onto'.

I'm an onner.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't quite follow the ideas in this thread. I think onto is okay precisely because there is physical contact implied. That's exactly what it means.

In the same way that you fix a note onto a wall, you fix your eyes onto something. That's the metaphor. It's very normal for us to use the metaphor of contact when talking about the objects of our visual attention.

 

[99bottles]

I think I have figured out why most people use on. Because fixed indicates movement anyway, so onto is redundant.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't quite follow the ideas in this thread. I think onto is okay precisely because there is physical contact implied. That's exactly what it means.

In the same way that you fix a note onto a wall, you fix your eyes onto something. That's the metaphor. It's very normal for us to use the metaphor of contact when talking about the objects of our visual attention.

When we fix our eyes on something, we don't tack our eyes to the object. We'd go blind if we did.

There is a related phrase: set one's scope on. On Google, I find over eight thousand results for set our scope on but not a single result for set our scope onto.

It's interesting, too, that dictiories define the phrase in question with on, not onto. If there is a variation in dictionaries, it is with upon, not with onto.

I found many examples where no physical contact is implied or inferred. Here are just three'

I could find many examples in which native speakers have used whom when they should have used who. Does that mean whom can substitute for who?

 

[5jj]

We can find references in respected grammars to the incorrectness of whom when it is nominative.
I haven't been able to find any authority declaring that fix one's eyes onto is incorrect.

 

[jutfrank]

When we fix our eyes on something, we don't tack our eyes to the object. We'd go blind if we did.

But yes, we do, metaphorically speaking, not literally. Obviously, we don't exchange lacrimal fluid when we make eye contact.

 

[Phaedrus]

I haven't been able to find any authority declaring that fix one's eyes onto is incorrect.

You haven't found any authority declaring that fix one's eyes onto is correct, either. It's ridiculous.

 

[5jj]

I think that's enough for now. We don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I am closing this thread.

If any member has any new information on this topic, PM me or another mod, and we'll reopen it.