[Grammar] Underwater

[EverLivingPoet]

(Context: The current mortgage crisis where homeowners owe more than their houses are worth)

"The house is underwater $100,000."

Should I put "by" right after "underwater"?

 

[SanMar]

(Context: The current mortgage crisis where homeowners owe more than their houses are worth)

"The house is underwater $100,000."

Should I put "by" right after "underwater"?

I haven't heard underwater being used in this way before. Do you mean some kind of debt?

Not a teacher.

 

[5jj]

I recommend that you do not use the expression at all. It sounds to me like the invention of some journalist who is trying to use vivid expressions

 

[EverLivingPoet]

I think in the United States, "underwater" means a house's market value has fallen below the purchase price of the house.

 

[curates-egg]

I think in the United States, "underwater" means a house's market value has fallen below the purchase price of the house.

I think that when somebody explains that the word is not used in that way, you will come up with a link in which it is used that way.

 

[EverLivingPoet]

If sales could be "up 10%", and the price could be "down $100", then surely a house could be "underwater $100,000"?

 

[5jj]

I recommend that you do not use the expression at all. It sounds to me like the invention of some journalist who is trying to use vivid expressions

 

[SanMar]

It may be some "creative" variation of drowning in debt. :roll:


Not a teacher.

 

[EverLivingPoet]

But, using the traditional meaning of "water", a stone could be "underwater (by) several feet"?

 

[5jj]

But, using the traditional meaning of "water", a stone could be "underwater (by) several feet"?

There being millions of stones on the beds of rivers, seas, lakes and oceans, you are unlikely to want to say such a thing.

You might, describing a valley in which a reservoir has been created, say "The village is now a hundred feet/metres under water". And, before you ask, some people might write 'underwater' as one word, and no, the difference isn't particularly important.

And no, we wouldn't normally say that something is underwater by several feet, but yes, there are probably some people who might say that.

 

[EverLivingPoet]

I meant to write in my last post:

But, using the traditional literal meaning of "underwater", a stone could be "underwater (by) several feet"?


So according to fivejedjon, I could say "the stone is underwater several feet", without using "by"?

 

[curates-egg]

I meant to write in my last post:

But, using the traditional literal meaning of "underwater", a stone could be "underwater (by) several feet"?


So according to fivejedjon, I could say "the stone is underwater several feet", without using "by"?

You'll have to do better than that, Everliving Poet. Even the most gullible of readers can see that that is not what Fivejedjon wrote.

 

[EverLivingPoet]

So, the rule is that directional adjectives (up, down, in, out, underwater, etc...) could be immediately followed by a numerical noun phrase, with "by" being optional?

 

[5jj]

There is no such rule, and nobody has said there is.

However, you win. I'm bored with this silliness. Carry on, and see if you can get somebody else to play.

 

[EverLivingPoet]

still not clear....

 

[curates-egg]

still not clear....

I have to admire your tenacity, but I don't think it will help much. You have already had one thread closed, and now somebody else has given up on you.

I suspect that most people have seen through you, are wise to you, have your number, have the measure of you; you have been rumbled, twigged.

Still, I am a sporting chap. l'll give you a chance and leave you undisturbed - in this thread at least.

 

[EverLivingPoet]

I am not a russian spy

 

[bhaisahab]

This thread is now closed. For obvious reasons.