I can see the beautiful rocks under/below us.

[Dominik92]

Hello,

• I can see the beautiful rocks under/below us. - I am on a cliff when saying this .
• They live in a small house under/below the hill. - Just stating where they live.

Could I use both in these sentences?

 

[Skrej]

In the first one, only 'below' works.

With the second sentence, both are possible, but they imply the house is as least partially embedded in the side of the hill, i.e. some kind of earth-shelter construction. It doesn't matter whether you're standing in front of the house or on top of the hill.

Otherwise, the house is just at the bottom of the hill if it's not actually inside the hill.

 

[Dominik92]

As for the first sentence. Is the rule/usage really so strict that I can't use under here? Here, under would mean directly under us? If there was a way to the rocks, it would take us five or so steps to get to them. They are under/below us but within a short distance (beeline) from the cliff we are standing on, so I consider them as if they were under us. Possible?

What if I was on a cliff and poiting at specific rocks that cought our attention, I wouldn't mean open area/panoramatic view of cliffs we can see, but only specific ones. Would it be possible to use under here?

 

[emsr2d2]

As for the first sentence, is the rule/usage really so strict that I can't use under here? Here, would under would mean directly under us? If there was a way to the rocks, it would take us five or so steps to get to them. They are under/below us but within a short distance (beeline) from the cliff we are standing on, so I consider them as if they were to be under us. Is that possible?

I don't really understand this scenario. If I were standing on a cliff, I wouldn't expect to be able to reach rocks within five or so steps. Can you explain the scenery a bit more? I envisaged a high cliff, bordering the sea, and the rocks at the shoreline. Those rocks would not be accessible unless you abseiled down the cliff (or rather more disastrously, fell off the cliff).

What if I was on a cliff and pointing at specific rocks that had caught our attention? I wouldn't mean an open area/panoramatic panoramic view of cliffs we can see, but only specific ones. Would it be possible to use under here?

No. It doesn't matter what sort of rocks they are. Unless you're physically standing on the rocks already, I wouldn't use "under". I'd use that word for something literally under my feet. The word "below" denotes "at a lower altitude", which seems to be the scenario you're describing.

 

[Skrej]

The only way I can think of to use 'under' in the first example if you were perhaps on some sort of transparent walkway or glass bridge. Even then it's kind of odd, and I'd still expect to hear 'below'.

 

[Dominik92]

It took my some time, I'm really puzzled here, yet still have the desire to find out how it works.

I was told I can use both under as well as below when it's supposed to mean directly underneath.

He climbed below/under the car to fix something.
There is a small wine cellar under/below the poolhouse.

Only below should be used in situations like - indirectly underneath, everywhere underneath, at a lower level.
And yes, the only use for under only - movement underneath.

That's my knowledge in a nutshell so far.
However, I feel like it depens on the speaker's perception too.

What about these:

- I'm standing under/below the ladder. - I would assume both are ok here.

- I fall off the ladder. Now, I'm lying on the ground, under/below the ladder. Here both ok - with no difference in meaning, I guess?

- From the top of the ladder, one can see the whole vast garden below the ladder. PANORAMATIC - preference of below, similarly as in - I look at the huge open space, the vast sea below us. Am I correct? However, I thought I could change the focus and use under instead in similar examples - We stand on a high tower on the sea side. I spit and the saliva will fall straight into the sea under us. This last example is what I intended to express with the cliff sentence in my original post.

-We walk on the beach, admiring the beautiful pebbles under/below our feet. Suddenly, we start levitating - just about 5-10 cm above the ground. Are the pebbles under, or below our feet? I believe it will depend on my perception whether I focus on the pebbles right under my feet (under) or those around (below - panoramatic).

 

[jutfrank]

Here's a semantic explanation.

The main idea you need to understand with 'below' is verticality, where you can imagine different things being located in relation to each other at points on a vertical line. Think about 'below the belt' in boxing, or 'below zero' and 'below sea-level' when using scales. Describing geography lends itself to this well—the sun sets 'below the horizon'. Your first sentence, which is also a geographical description, is in fact a very good example sentence for 'below', in my opinion, as it has precisely this sense of verticality.

Also, and importantly, 'below' has a basic difference from 'under' in contact/proximity. With 'below', the two things (e.g. the rocks and us) do not touch and so don't have a direct effect on each other. Conversely, 'under' may include contact between the two things (though it doesn't always). In your first example, as you're peering over the cliff-face, you can say that the rocks are 'below you' and also that the edge of the cliff itself is 'under your feet', as you stand on it.

With the hill example, 'under' works well with the sense of contact—we imagine the house being dug directly into the hill. Think also about 'under the duvet' and 'under the carpet', which express something being covered, like a house inside a hill. 'Below' wouldn't work well in the second sentence as there is contact and it's not about verticality.

'Under' is quite a lot more common than 'below' since it's more general in meaning, may or may not include contact, and can often work in contexts where 'below' also does.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm standing under/below the ladder. - I would assume both are ok here.

The proximity of you and the ladder, and the direct influence of the situation—it's potentially dangerous—means you need 'under' here.

I fall off the ladder. Now, I'm lying on the ground, under/below the ladder. Here both ok - with no difference in meaning, I guess?

It's the same as before you fell off, in my mind. The relation between you and the ladder hasn't changed.

From the top of the ladder, one can see the whole vast garden below the ladder.

Yes. Well, below your vantage point at the top of the ladder.

PANORAMATIC - preference of below, similarly as in - I look at the huge open space, the vast sea below us. Am I correct?

Yes. Another geographic description, about altitude (verticality).

We stand on a high tower on the sea side. I spit and the saliva will fall straight into the sea under us.

The obvious sense of verticality means 'below' works well here. You're up high and the sea, and your spit, are down below.

We walk on the beach, admiring the beautiful pebbles under/below our feet.

Contact, so 'under'.

Suddenly, we start levitating - just about 5-10 cm above the ground. Are the pebbles under, or below our feet?

Vertcality and no contact, so 'below'.

I believe it will depend on my perception whether I focus on the pebbles right under my feet (under) or those around (below - panoramatic).

Yes. Well, not perception but rather your cognition of the world around you, and the way your mind structures reality spatially, and how it relates things in the world to each other.

 

[Dominik92]

Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation.

Before I go any further, let me ask you one additional question separately.

That is, when would you use these two prepositions interchangeably?

The source where I came across this (saying that sometimes I can use both) says that when something is directly underneath, we can use both under and below. That may be where the confusion comes from. How can I tell what's still quite "directly underneath" and what's not. I'm asking this because I thought that in the "ladder" examples, in my previous post, both under and below will be possible exactly for this reason - me being directly underneath the ladder. Similarly to the examples the source offers:

He climbed below/under the car to fix something.
There is a small wine cellar under/below the poolhouse.
She turned the phone on under/below the desk.

THE SOURCE: here

 

[jutfrank]

What source are you referring to? Please cite the author and title.

'Below' fits as well as 'under' in the second of those three examples, as the idea is about levels. In the first, 'below' doesn't work at all whereas 'under' works perfectly. I'm not sure what the third sentence is supposed to mean.

I think you should forget this idea of something being "directly underneath".

 

[Dominik92]

What source are you referring to? Please cite the author and title.

'Below' fits as well as 'under' in the second of those three examples, as the idea is about levels. In the first, 'below' doesn't work at all whereas 'under' works perfectly. I'm not sure what the third sentence is supposed to mean.

I think you should forget this idea of something being "directly underneath".

1) I've now cited the author, sorry I didn't originally.

2) So, in the second example both work, as you say, because the idea is about levels. Could you elaborate on this, please? The idea of "levels" makes under and below interchangeable? What kind of situations fall into this "levels" category?

3) As I get the sentence, it's about a student turning on their phone e.g. during a class or so so that nobody can see it.

 

[jutfrank]

2) So, in the second example both work, as you say, because the idea is about levels. Could you elaborate on this, please? The idea of "levels" makes under and below interchangeable? What kind of situations fall into this "levels" category?

I mean that because the wine cellar is one level below the pool, 'below' (and its natural opposite 'above') works well. When talking about structures and buildings with multiple floors, 'below' and 'above' are ideal.

I sometimes hear the guy singing to himself in the apartment below me.
Floor 21 is two floors above Floor 19.

Equally, 'under' works well if the idea is to say that the wine cellar is in some way concealed or covered by the pool. Maybe it's a secret room, for example. So there's still a difference in meaning.

3) As I get the sentence, it's about a student turning on their phone e.g. during a class or so so that nobody can see it.

Ah, I see. In that case, there's no argument for 'below'. You definitely need 'under' here since the idea is that the student is trying to conceal her phone from the teacher.

 

[Dominik92]

1)
Source: Michael Swan - Practical English Usage, says:

The prepositions below and under can both mean "lower than".

- Look in the cupboard below/under the sink.
- The picture is below/under the shelf.

So, I can use these two intechangeably with no difference in meaning when it is just "lower than"? Isn't this similar to wine cellar example?

The same source also says:

We prefer under when something is covered or hidden by what is over it, and when things are touching.

- I think the cat's under the bed.

I feel like this "rule" overlaps with the first one, doesn't it? I mean the cat doesn't have to be touching the bed or be covered by it.

2)

I sometimes hear the guy singing to himself in the apartment below me.
Floor 21 is two floors above Floor 19.

Here, under would be incorrect, right?

Equally, 'under' works well if the idea is to say that the wine cellar is in some way concealed or covered by the pool. Maybe it's a secret room, for example. So there's still a difference in meaning.

Difference in meaning in this example surprises me. I would just expect that under emphasizes the wine cellar being right under the pool/the building and below being about "levels".

Similarly here:

- There are burried bodies under/below us. (We are standing on a place where, according to historical evidence, dead bodies may be burried.) I would use under to highlight that they may be right under us where we are now standing. Below would mean the bodies may be everywhere below us, not necessarily right under our shoes. Could be?

 

[jutfrank]

1)
Source: Michael Swan - Practical English Usage, says:

The prepositions below and under can both mean "lower than".

Correct.

- Look in the cupboard below/under the sink.
- The picture is below/under the shelf.

So, I can use these two intechangeably with no difference in meaning when it is just "lower than"?

Different prepositions almost always have different meanings; they are very rarely synonymous. They very often, however, have some of their semantics in common with each other. For example, both 'below' and 'under' have a basic sense of 'lower than', just as 'above' and 'over' have a sense of 'higher than'. They're similar in some ways but differ in other aspects.

The same source also says:

We prefer under when something is covered or hidden by what is over it, and when things are touching.

- I think the cat's under the bed.

Correct.

I feel like this "rule" overlaps with the first one, doesn't it? I mean the cat doesn't have to be touching the bed or be covered by it.

It doesn't have to be touching physically. The idea of contact may only be conceptual. Because of this, some semanticists would use the notion of proximity, rather than contact. Others prefer the idea of 'directness of influence'. And yes, the bed certainly is covering the cat—this is a crucial part of the meaning, i.e., that the cat can't be seen.

Here, under would be incorrect, right?

It would be a poor choice, yes, which is precisely why I chose those examples.

Difference in meaning in this example surprises me. I would just expect that under emphasizes the wine cellar being right under the pool/the building and below being about "levels".

Yes, the pool is covering the cellar. For this to be so, it must be directly above and bigger in area, which is what we imagine.

- There are burried bodies under/below us. (We are standing on a place where, according to historical evidence, dead bodies may be burried.) I would use under to highlight that they may be right under us where we are now standing. Below would mean the bodies may be everywhere below us, not necessarily right under our shoes. Could be?

Yes, that could be so.

 

[emsr2d2]

Note the correct spelling of "buried".

 

[Dominik92]

Hello again, there a few points I'd like to ask you, if you don't mind.

1)

Suddenly, we start levitating - just about 5-10 cm above the ground. Are the pebbles under, or below our feet?

You said: "Vertcality and no contact, so 'below'."

I'm standing under/below the ladder. - I would assume both are ok here.

You said: The proximity of you and the ladder, and the direct influence of the situation—it's potentially dangerous—means you need 'under' here.

As for the proximity here, I think that's going to be bigger in the ladder example rather than the pebbles one. Yet, under is not fitting in the latter. Interesting. It seems to be important whether there is some kind of "danger" as you mentioned it in the ladder example as well as in the phone one. Is the absence of "danger" in the pebbles example more crucial than the verticality?

2)

You said: Describing geography lends itself to this well—the sun sets 'below the horizon'. Your first sentence, which is also a geographical description, is in fact a very good example sentence for 'below', in my opinion, as it has precisely this sense of verticality.

I've bumbed into this source and example:

In 1:50 he says both "The city is under/below her" are possible. I would only expect below to be the correct of the two. Don't see here that much difference compared to my original sentence where you all agreed on below being the only correct choice - I can see the beautiful rocks below us.

The prepositions below and under can both mean "lower than".

I mean, "lower than" is so tricky....it seems as if it could be used literally for anything. Yet, in many instances, only one of the two will be correct. I am definitely not looking for 100% rule here, just a sort of guideline, but even that is quite hard to find here.

Also, I don't see much difference in terms of "lower than" when I compare these:
.
- Look in the cupboard below/under the sink.
- The picture is below/under the shelf.

....with the car example:

- He climbed below the car to fix something.

In the car example the person is lower than the car too, isn't he?

 

[jutfrank]

It seems to be important whether there is some kind of "danger" as you mentioned it in the ladder example as well as in the phone one.

Danger is certainly relevant, yes, but there doesn't have to be potential danger. The main idea, as I said is contact, and it's often the case that physical danger equates to physical contact. It's dangerous to walk under a ladder because something might fall and hit you on the head.

Is the absence of "danger" in the pebbles example more crucial than the verticality?

I would say no. The verticality is the main idea, and the absence of contact is also crucial but secondary.

In 1:50 he says both "The city is under/below her" are possible. I would only expect below to be the correct of the two.

You're quite right, yes.

Don't see here that much difference compared to my original sentence where you all agreed on below being the only correct choice - I can see the beautiful rocks below us.

Yes, it's a very similar case.

I mean, "lower than" is so tricky....it seems as if it could be used literally for anything.

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean here. Are you asking about how to use the words 'lower than'?

Yet, in many instances, only one of the two will be correct. I am definitely not looking for 100% rule here, just a sort of guideline, but even that is quite hard to find here.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm attempting to provide you with. Are you not following?

Also, I don't see much difference in terms of "lower than" when I compare these:
.
- Look in the cupboard below/under the sink.
- The picture is below/under the shelf.

....with the car example:

- He climbed below the car to fix something.

In the car example the person is lower than the car too, isn't he?

I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. Would you ask again? Remember that both 'under' and 'below' mean 'lower than'. The car example needs 'under' because of the idea of contact and being covered that we discussed above.

 

[Dominik92]

The thread is quite long at this point, so I'm re-posting the three examples I'm referring to here so that we don't have to go through the whole thread again to find them:

- Suddenly, we start levitating - just about 5-10 cm above the ground. Are the pebbles under, or below our feet?
- I can see the beautiful rocks under/below us. - I am on a cliff when saying this .
- "The city is under/below her"
- I'm standing under/below the ladder

In the "witch" example where she is flying over the city having the city below/under her, you would prefer below to under, as I would. What makes the native teacher say he can imagine using under too? If I compare this "witch" context with the "cliff" one, I may see a difference. If the witch looks down there is just the city she is flying over - therefore both below as well as under are possible. But when I'm on the cliff and look down, there may be dust, grass whatever, not the other cliffs though, they are below me in the distance, not straight under my feet. It then leaves me wondering why in the levitating "pebbles" example I can only use below. To me, it's really close to the "witch" situation. If I look straight down I can see the pebbles being straight under me too. Maybe the native from the video would use both here too? I know it's something we can't answer for him, I'm just thinking out loud. What do you think about it? Is this a possible way to look at things?

The "ladder" example - "I'm standing under the ladder." I wouldn't use "below" either here. I see myself as one point/thing being under the ladder, I'm not a sea, city, pebbles or cliffs that spread all around me. Is this a valid point of view?

I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. Would you ask again? Remember that both 'under' and 'below' mean 'lower than'. The car example needs 'under' because of the idea of contact and being covered that we discussed above.

My point was that the advice books provide "The prepositions below and under can both mean "lower than"." is too vague and it lead me to thinking that under/below may be interchangable in most contexts, including the one with the car. It just seemed to be too similar to the examples like these: Look in the cupboard below/under the sink./ The picture is below/under the shelf. I just didn't take that "being covered" factor into consideration. My "issue" here is that most of the time I believe I will be able to choose the correct one of the two, but never be sure if I can use both in a context I'll be dealing with.

 

[jutfrank]

In the "witch" example where she is flying over the city having the city below/under her, you would prefer below to under, as I would.

Yes.

What makes the native teacher say he can imagine using under too?

I don't know and I don't think that's interesting or important. 'Under' is a poor choice here, however keen this teacher's imagination may be.

If I compare this "witch" context with the "cliff" one, I may see a difference. If the witch looks down there is just the city she is flying over - therefore both below as well as under are possible.

It really doesn't matter what is 'possible'. What matters is finding the right preposition for the job. In this case, the main idea is verticality, and furthermore there's no proximity/contact, so 'below' fits the meaning.

But when I'm on the cliff and look down, there may be dust, grass whatever, not the other cliffs though, they are below me in the distance, not straight under my feet.

Right. The beach is down below you (on a different level) and the ground is right under your feet, touching.

It then leaves me wondering why in the levitating "pebbles" example I can only use below. To me, it's really close to the "witch" situation.

Yes, it's the same as the witch situation, in that there is no contact. That was the whole point of you making this levitating witch situation up! You forced a situation where there was no contact.

If I look straight down I can see the pebbles being straight under me too. Maybe the native from the video would use both here too? I know it's something we can't answer for him, I'm just thinking out loud. What do you think about it? Is this a possible way to look at things?

No, I don't think so. I would guess it's simply that the native speaker really doesn't understand the semantics properly, and that he likely doesn't have a very good idea of what he would say in a certain situation. Get the idea out of your mind that you can use both in a particular situation. You need to focus on which one is right for the task.

The "ladder" example - "I'm standing under the ladder." I wouldn't use "below" either here. I see myself as one point/thing being under the ladder, I'm not a sea, city, pebbles or cliffs that spread all around me. Is this a valid point of view?

Not really, no. It has little to do with your being 'directly underneath', which I've told you twice before in this thread.

My point was that the advice books provide "The prepositions below and under can both mean "lower than"." is too vague

It's not too 'vague', but rather that it's too simple. As I said before, prepositions have different meanings. There may be some semantic overlap, but that does not mean that two different prepositions are interchangeable. Yes, both 'below' and 'under' both mean 'lower than'—there's nothing vague about that. Your task is to focus on the differences in meaning, which I've gone to some lengths to outline in this thread.

and it lead me to thinking that under/below may be interchangable in most contexts

No. I would say they are rarely interchangeable. After all, they have different meanings.

My "issue" here is that most of the time I believe I will be able to choose the correct one of the two, but never be sure if I can use both in a context I'll be dealing with.

No, you can't use both. Focus on finding the right one for the job, and on the differences, not similarities, in meaning.