On vs over (is using "on" wrong here?)

Question

I know the difference. I know over in this case means that the thing covers all or almost all of the other thing, and on simply means that the thing is on part of the surface of the other thing. But, is using on instead of over wrong enough to be called a mistake, when the situation fulfills the sense of over? For instance: Zebras have stripes over their bodies. If I replaced over with on, would it be a wrong word here?

Answer 1

Over can be used as a preposition, adjective or adverb indicating as across, more than, down, using, other side, during, control, connected with, extra, finished, again, feeling better. Whereas on generally refers to a position which directs to something being on top of something else.

Hence, to answer your question - even if the situaton fulfills the criteria, it is grammatically against the sentence structuring. Hence, I can use "Lay blanket on your sister" but the sentence is incomplete, however "Lay blanket over your sister" gives a foundation to the sentence. Hence, the context would matter based on the usage of the word on and over

Answer 2

I think that saying "over their bodies" is a mistake.

("All over their bodies" would not be a mistake, as "all over" is an idiom = in every place in/on; [completely] covering; widely distributed.)

Medical Tourism: Knowing about Better Medical Treatment ... " by D.J. Singh. "Also, you are going to get more information about medical practices and services given all over the world,"

Over the Edge "There was blood all over the pillow.")

"Over + object" tends to mean "above + object", i.e. not necessarily (i) touching or (ii) in permanent contact with the object.

To me "Zebras have stripes over their bodies." gives the impression of stripes floating above the zebra's body, or being worn like a coat.

On = upon the surface of and implies contact. So Zebras have stripes on their bodies.