I am not a native English speaker, I usually hear “something caught my eye” but never “something caught (both) my eyes”. This seems pretty strange to me.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online provide these examples but without any explanation

catch sb's eye
(i) to get someone's ​attention:
A ​sudden ​movement ​caught my ​eye.

(ii) to get someone's ​attention, ​especially by ​looking at them:
I ​tried to catch the waiter's ​eye, so we could ​order.

(iii) to be ​attractive or different enough to be ​noticed by someone:
It was the ​unusual ​colour of his ​jacket that ​caught my ​eye.

Why is only one eye ‘caught”? Doesn't something catch our sight? We normally see with both eyes, not with one.

  • 1
    We also say "to look someone in the eye" (not "in the eyes") meaning "to look at someone openly and without shame or embarrassment" (collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/…). For other "singular" phrases see #13-19, 24, 25, 28, 37 at oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/eye. But neither dictionary explains why they are singular. – alephzero Aug 19 '15 at 19:12
  • 2
    Something that catches your eye is something that attracts your attention. By implication, it distracts you from whatever it is your attention was originally on, and since it appears on the periphery of your metaphorical vision, and not on its focus, I would think it entirely reasonable to speak of it affecting one eye before the other eye has a chance to react. – choster Aug 19 '15 at 19:18
  • 1
    The implication is that you saw it "out of the corner of your eye", meaning, figuratively at least, in your peripheral vision. Peripheral vision generally involves only one eye at a time. – Hot Licks Aug 19 '15 at 19:59
  • 2
    (But do understand that the reason for the use of a plural or not in an idiom does not always "make sense".) – Hot Licks Aug 19 '15 at 20:00
  • 1
    Caught my eye is not the only idiom or expression that uses the singular eye as opposed to the plural eyes. Others include: the apple of my eye, look me in the eye, as far as the eye can see, giving him the evil eye, keep an eye on my purse and keep your eye on the ball. Sometimes both can be found. – J.R. Aug 19 '15 at 21:27

In this case, the eye is standing for the whole system of visual perception.

This is an example of synecdoche - a figure of speech in which a part of something stands for the whole of the thing (or vice versa)*.

Chambers Dictionary : figure of speech in which a part of something is used to refer to or denote the whole thing, or the whole to refer to or denote a part

|improve this answer|||||

It's possible it evolved out of the phrase "caught my gaze", where it's assumed you're using both eyes to gaze, or "caught my attention", and over time "gaze" or "attention" became "eye", but someone more educated in the history of these terms would have to verify this.

|improve this answer|||||

Taking up the comparison with 'caught my gaze' as suggested by Zwi .

I believe that it relates to the verb 'to eye' and to the noun associated with it. As Zwi points out, 'to eye' something means 'to gaze' at it.

Here are some examples:

Phrases with singular 'eye'

14 give someone the eye informal
Look at someone with clear sexual interest: this blonde was giving me the eye

15 half an eye
Used in reference to a slight degree of perception or attention: he kept half an eye on the house as he worked

16 have an eye for
Be able to recognize, appreciate, and make good judgements about: applicants should have an eye for detail

17 have (or keep) one's eye on
Keep under careful observation: I’ve got my eye on you—any nonsense and you’re for it! etc.

Oxford Dictionaries

Thus we are not talking about a physical object referring to our ocular apparatus, instead we are using an approximate synonym for the noun 'gaze'.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    This is a step in the right direction...what about lend a hand or an ear? Same kind of analysis? – michael_timofeev Oct 22 '15 at 17:12

I know normally we should use "catch my eyes". But poems seems to have special rules. In order to have a better rhythm, I see somewhere the plural form is not so strict.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.