3

There are over more than 3,000 people in the stadium.

What do you think about this duplicated expression "over more than"? Does the redundant wording serve to intensify? Or is it wrong?

  • It's at least bad style because of the redundancy, yes, and a troll under the bridge of clear expression. – Robusto Nov 18 '15 at 21:12
2

Over doesn't work as an intensifier here. Your example sentence just doesn't sound right.

But don't take my word for it: look at the search results on Google Books for this phrase. It's only used in examples like this:

  • She'd turned over more than once
  • Looking back now over more than half a century
  • Smooth solid russeting extending over more than one-half of the surface
  • Lozen's story roams over more than just the Arizona Territory

That is, the over is associated with the preceding verb, not as an intensifier for more than.

If you want an intensifier, use one like much, way, or far in front of more than instead, like:

There are far more than 3,000 people in the stadium.

0

Why not say There are more than over 3,000 people in the stadium. It doesn't tell you anything that There are more than 3,000 people in the stadium wouldn't tell you; but it is idiomatic. The way it is expressed in the question is not.

  • Since when / where is "more than over" idiomatic?? – Hellion Nov 18 '15 at 22:17
  • @Hellion Well I've certainly heard it. I'm not sure what has to happen in order for it to be counted idiomatic. – WS2 Nov 19 '15 at 0:00
  • You've heard it from multiple, unrelated people in a decently-sized geographical region? It has not crossed my ears in the North Midwest (Minnesota) or the East (Maryland). – Hellion Nov 19 '15 at 2:41

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.