I was so absorbed by the movie that I didn't notice you coming in.

[99bottles]

I found that sentence on the Idioms site.

absorbed by

Definition of absorbed by in the Idioms Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

idioms.thefreedictionary.com

The thing is, in all other online dictionaries, the passive form of that verb (when the meaning is to hold someone's interest) is absorbed in. Is by also acceptable? Why is this the only dictionary that mentions this structure?

 

[tedmc]

I prefer "absorbed in something", which is like saying one is engrossed in (not by) an activity.

 

[Tarheel]

I have no way of knowing why it's only in that dictionary. Your guess is as good as mine.

I agree with tedmc.

 

[5jj]

in all other online dictionaries, the passive form of that verb (when the meaning is to hold someone's interest) is absorbed in.

In a couple of the dictionaries I looked at, absorbed (followed by in) is given as an adjective.

With by, we have the passive of the verb absorb.

 

[99bottles]

In a couple of the dictionaries I looked at, absorbed (followed by in) is given as an adjective.

With by, we have the passive of the verb absorb.

So absorbed by sounds like he was in the process of being absorbed, whereas absorbed in means his attention was already elsewhere. Did I get it right?

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with 5jj. The use of by shows that the writer is thinking of absorbed as a passive verb rather than an adjective.

So absorbed by sounds like he was in the process of being absorbed

Not in the process, no. The past tense was shows that the process was already complete by this point.

 

[99bottles]

I agree with 5jj. The use of by shows that the writer is thinking of absorbed as a passive verb rather than an adjective.



Not in the process, no. The past tense was shows that the process was already complete by this point.

But if the whole story is written in the past tense, the past tense does not necessarily show that the process was complete at this point.

 

[jutfrank]

If the process were still underway, it would say was being absorbed, right? The past simple gives the sense of completion.

Anyway, I suggest you just forget about this example. My feeling is that the writer was trying to use absorbed as an adjective (evidenced by the degree modifier so) and that they should therefore have used in instead.

 

[99bottles]

If the process were still underway, it would say was being absorbed, right? The past simple gives the sense of completion.

Anyway, I suggest you just forget about this example. My feeling is that the writer was trying to use absorbed as an adjective (evidenced by the degree modifier so) and that they should therefore have used in instead.

So, can I use either by or in? Is there a difference in meaning?

 

[jutfrank]

So, can I use either by or in? Is there a difference in meaning?

I thought we'd already outlined the difference in meaning. With by, the speaker is thinking of absorbed as a passive verb—what we're calling a completed process. With in, absorbed is better understood as a descriptive state.

 

[99bottles]

So absorbed by sounds like he was in the process of being absorbed, whereas absorbed in means his attention was already elsewhere. Did I get it right?

Tarheel, you liked that post. Does that mean you agree?

 

[Tarheel]

That's what that means, yes.