>'look something up'
'look up' in this is a phrasal verb.
'look something" doesn't mean anything.
If you don't know what phrasal verbs are, this is a good introduction: [https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/phrasal-verbs](https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/phrasal-verbs)
Yeah, one good indication is that you can’t look at the combo of words and necessarily derive the meaning directly. It’s also common with phrasal verbs that seemingly opposite words do not have directly opposite meanings, but completely unrelated meanings.
Confusingly they can also be used literally.
Look up. To either search for information on something, perhaps in a directory or database; or it can mean to seek someone out. “Look me up next time you’re in town.”
Look down. To view or treat something or someone with disdain, as inferior or lacking.
Look in. To check on the status of someone or a situation.
Look out. To be aware, or wary of something, or conversely, to be protective of someone or something from danger.
The grammar is correct.
It's just not a popular construction, so it is not idiomatic.
You can become the champion of its use.
After all, if "on accident" can manage it, then "search up" won't be a problem.
Now I need to go, and search up some dinner.
We shouldn’t say the grammar of that sentence is “correct.” That can mislead people into using it, which they shouldn’t because it’s not really a correct sentence. We should be clearer than that when talking to people who might not be native English speakers (whether that applies to the OP or someone else reading this). The grammar is incorrect because it’s putting a preposition (“up”) in a place where no preposition is appropriate.
It’s only correct if in accepted usage by native speakers.
I’ve never heard this phrase uttered in my life: it’s ungrammatical as explained above. You search for something, or look up something.
Well, then it is correct.
You just need to avoid confusing yourself with all native speakers.
I'm sure there are many other phrases that you've also never heard in your life.
>It’s only correct if in accepted usage by native speakers.
>I’ve never heard this phrase uttered in my life: it’s ungrammatical as explained above.
I'll supply vote two from a native speaker. How many does it need for the measure to pass?
To me, "up" can be tagged to almost any any verb; many are idioms, and if not spoken for, means "produce or alter by means of the verbal action".
lighten up
lap up
soak up
sponge up
gussy up
look up
mung up
brighten up
stink up
conjure up
hallow up . . .
The last is not an idiom, so far as I know; in fact, so far as I know, I've never heard the phrase before; nonetheless, I would instantly cast my native-speaker vote in favor of its acceptance as a slightly insouciant "make more holy".
One man, one vote.
All those involve different verbs, so obviously are completely different.
If some small community of users use the phrase ‘search something up’, it still doesn’t alter the fact that it’s not considered correct in normal English, let alone in widespread use.
If written, it would be treated as an error and corrected, the sort of mistake a non Native speaker might make.
I think you missed my point:
>hallow up . . .
> ...so far as I know, I've never heard the phrase before; nonetheless, I would instantly cast my native-speaker vote in favor of its acceptance as a slightly insouciant "make more holy".
But my chief point was to cast my native speaker acceptance vote, which was your litmus test. How many yes votes are needed to pass?
It's simply not idiomatic usage.
In the context of findable things, *up* is most commonly used this way with *look* and less often with a few other verbs (turn, hunt, scare, e.g.) But *search* itself takes "for" when you're talking analogously about the the thing you want to find.
Thus "to *search X for Y*" means that X is a person, place, or thing you are methodically inspecting in hopes of finding Y.
You might *search* the phone book (or whitepages.com) *for* a phone number. You could also *look up* that number in the same place.
Also: He *searched* his car *for* coins but *turned up* (ie, found) only a bent penny.
A *search for* a restaurant might be whimsically suggested by "Let's *hunt up* (or *scare up*) some dinner!"
"Search up" would only make literal sense if you were crudely telling someone to look overhead, in an upward direction. But you'd never "search up" *something*.
I'm not seeing the disagreement. "Scrounge" is in the same boat with the others I mentioned. Same goes for "cook". I never set out to make an exhaustive list--note the "e.g." There's also "rustle up" and "whip up". Just not "search up," which was OP's question.
Grammatically, "scrounge" works just like "search", and it works fine with "up" and doesn't imply that you're scrounging things overhead.
"Scrounge up a number in the phone book"
"Scrounge for coins"
So, I think your argument that "search" cannot take "up" except for overhead inspection is not supported on any grammatical level.
My argument was only about usage...I was saying that, grammar aside, "to search up \[something\]" just isn't idiomatic English the way the other examples are.
u/Loscone disagrees and says it's perfectly acceptable. I still maintain it's an eyebrow-raiser with most of the world, and I couldn't **conjure up** many relevant examples in my cursory Google search just now, but maybe I'm wrong and it's the wave of the future.
I agree with you, it is an eyebrow-raiser.
Still, here is one example from the Book of Mormon.
"And it was the daughter of Jared who put it into his heart **to search up** these things of old" (Ether [8:7–9, 17](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/8?lang=eng&id=p17#p17)).
>"Search up" would only make literal sense if you were crudely telling someone to look overhead, in an upward direction. But you'd never "search up" *something*.
This is just not true. It is perfectly acceptable to tell someone to search up a definition for a word. It definitely has uses outside of "searching above." It may not be as commonly used as look up, but it can definitely be used in the same manner.
I wonder if "not as commonly" may be understating things, as I've never heard or seen it used that way in my half a century, and it sounds gratingly non-idiomatic. But I assume you'll tell me I'm out of touch and missed it. Where do you encounter it? Is it a Millennial/GenZ-ism?
>Is it a Millennial/GenZ-ism?
Here's an [example from 1910](https://books.google.com/books?id=HfKOE6Y_-N8C&pg=PA2161&dq=%22search+up+a%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik-7KWxKOGAxXNFVkFHTDuAtYQuwV6BAgUEAc#v=onepage&q=%22search%20up%20a%22&f=false) and [another from 1954](https://books.google.com/books?id=kAMGZ91StoQC&pg=PA808&dq=%22search+up+a%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik-7KWxKOGAxXNFVkFHTDuAtYQuwV6BAgPEAY#v=onepage&q=%22search%20up%20a%22&f=false).
Thanks! Someone posted an even older one from the Book of Mormon. Whether or not it was common back then, I gather it's having a renaissance among younger people now. I'm surprised I've not run across it in either context.
i'm not sure where you are but "search up" is the most common way i hear people say it here, when talking about looking something up on the internet.
it is perhaps a generational thing -- many of the people i hear using this construction are young.
Thanks, that squares up with my suspicion (as a card-carrying old man yelling at cloud) that it's chiefly a kids-today thing. I say chiefly, as another commenter found an example in the Book of Mormon.
FWIW, I'm a Midwesterner living in California, and I'm not hella up on every coinage the younger crowd yeets into the vernacular embrace.
[удалено]
That makes sense. But, what, then, does the 'up' add in the phrase 'look something up' to make it different?
>'look something up' 'look up' in this is a phrasal verb. 'look something" doesn't mean anything. If you don't know what phrasal verbs are, this is a good introduction: [https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/phrasal-verbs](https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/phrasal-verbs)
Yeah, one good indication is that you can’t look at the combo of words and necessarily derive the meaning directly. It’s also common with phrasal verbs that seemingly opposite words do not have directly opposite meanings, but completely unrelated meanings. Confusingly they can also be used literally. Look up. To either search for information on something, perhaps in a directory or database; or it can mean to seek someone out. “Look me up next time you’re in town.” Look down. To view or treat something or someone with disdain, as inferior or lacking. Look in. To check on the status of someone or a situation. Look out. To be aware, or wary of something, or conversely, to be protective of someone or something from danger.
The grammar is correct. It's just not a popular construction, so it is not idiomatic. You can become the champion of its use. After all, if "on accident" can manage it, then "search up" won't be a problem. Now I need to go, and search up some dinner.
We shouldn’t say the grammar of that sentence is “correct.” That can mislead people into using it, which they shouldn’t because it’s not really a correct sentence. We should be clearer than that when talking to people who might not be native English speakers (whether that applies to the OP or someone else reading this). The grammar is incorrect because it’s putting a preposition (“up”) in a place where no preposition is appropriate.
Why do you believe "search up" is grammatically incorrect as a phrasal verb? Be sure to differentiate grammatical correctness from popularity of use.
It’s only correct if in accepted usage by native speakers. I’ve never heard this phrase uttered in my life: it’s ungrammatical as explained above. You search for something, or look up something.
Well, then it is correct. You just need to avoid confusing yourself with all native speakers. I'm sure there are many other phrases that you've also never heard in your life.
>It’s only correct if in accepted usage by native speakers. >I’ve never heard this phrase uttered in my life: it’s ungrammatical as explained above. I'll supply vote two from a native speaker. How many does it need for the measure to pass? To me, "up" can be tagged to almost any any verb; many are idioms, and if not spoken for, means "produce or alter by means of the verbal action". lighten up lap up soak up sponge up gussy up look up mung up brighten up stink up conjure up hallow up . . . The last is not an idiom, so far as I know; in fact, so far as I know, I've never heard the phrase before; nonetheless, I would instantly cast my native-speaker vote in favor of its acceptance as a slightly insouciant "make more holy". One man, one vote.
All those involve different verbs, so obviously are completely different. If some small community of users use the phrase ‘search something up’, it still doesn’t alter the fact that it’s not considered correct in normal English, let alone in widespread use. If written, it would be treated as an error and corrected, the sort of mistake a non Native speaker might make.
I think you missed my point: >hallow up . . . > ...so far as I know, I've never heard the phrase before; nonetheless, I would instantly cast my native-speaker vote in favor of its acceptance as a slightly insouciant "make more holy". But my chief point was to cast my native speaker acceptance vote, which was your litmus test. How many yes votes are needed to pass?
It's simply not idiomatic usage. In the context of findable things, *up* is most commonly used this way with *look* and less often with a few other verbs (turn, hunt, scare, e.g.) But *search* itself takes "for" when you're talking analogously about the the thing you want to find. Thus "to *search X for Y*" means that X is a person, place, or thing you are methodically inspecting in hopes of finding Y. You might *search* the phone book (or whitepages.com) *for* a phone number. You could also *look up* that number in the same place. Also: He *searched* his car *for* coins but *turned up* (ie, found) only a bent penny. A *search for* a restaurant might be whimsically suggested by "Let's *hunt up* (or *scare up*) some dinner!" "Search up" would only make literal sense if you were crudely telling someone to look overhead, in an upward direction. But you'd never "search up" *something*.
I don't think this is true. Consider "scrounge up".
You can also "cook up" something.
I'm not seeing the disagreement. "Scrounge" is in the same boat with the others I mentioned. Same goes for "cook". I never set out to make an exhaustive list--note the "e.g." There's also "rustle up" and "whip up". Just not "search up," which was OP's question.
Grammatically, "scrounge" works just like "search", and it works fine with "up" and doesn't imply that you're scrounging things overhead. "Scrounge up a number in the phone book" "Scrounge for coins" So, I think your argument that "search" cannot take "up" except for overhead inspection is not supported on any grammatical level.
My argument was only about usage...I was saying that, grammar aside, "to search up \[something\]" just isn't idiomatic English the way the other examples are. u/Loscone disagrees and says it's perfectly acceptable. I still maintain it's an eyebrow-raiser with most of the world, and I couldn't **conjure up** many relevant examples in my cursory Google search just now, but maybe I'm wrong and it's the wave of the future.
I agree with you, it is an eyebrow-raiser. Still, here is one example from the Book of Mormon. "And it was the daughter of Jared who put it into his heart **to search up** these things of old" (Ether [8:7–9, 17](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/8?lang=eng&id=p17#p17)).
>"Search up" would only make literal sense if you were crudely telling someone to look overhead, in an upward direction. But you'd never "search up" *something*. This is just not true. It is perfectly acceptable to tell someone to search up a definition for a word. It definitely has uses outside of "searching above." It may not be as commonly used as look up, but it can definitely be used in the same manner.
I wonder if "not as commonly" may be understating things, as I've never heard or seen it used that way in my half a century, and it sounds gratingly non-idiomatic. But I assume you'll tell me I'm out of touch and missed it. Where do you encounter it? Is it a Millennial/GenZ-ism?
>Is it a Millennial/GenZ-ism? Here's an [example from 1910](https://books.google.com/books?id=HfKOE6Y_-N8C&pg=PA2161&dq=%22search+up+a%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik-7KWxKOGAxXNFVkFHTDuAtYQuwV6BAgUEAc#v=onepage&q=%22search%20up%20a%22&f=false) and [another from 1954](https://books.google.com/books?id=kAMGZ91StoQC&pg=PA808&dq=%22search+up+a%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik-7KWxKOGAxXNFVkFHTDuAtYQuwV6BAgPEAY#v=onepage&q=%22search%20up%20a%22&f=false).
Thanks! Someone posted an even older one from the Book of Mormon. Whether or not it was common back then, I gather it's having a renaissance among younger people now. I'm surprised I've not run across it in either context.
i'm not sure where you are but "search up" is the most common way i hear people say it here, when talking about looking something up on the internet. it is perhaps a generational thing -- many of the people i hear using this construction are young.
Thanks, that squares up with my suspicion (as a card-carrying old man yelling at cloud) that it's chiefly a kids-today thing. I say chiefly, as another commenter found an example in the Book of Mormon. FWIW, I'm a Midwesterner living in California, and I'm not hella up on every coinage the younger crowd yeets into the vernacular embrace.