0

This question already has an answer here:

I've been trying to wrap my head around these two. So, here are the two relevant examples of usage (from Cambridge Dictionary and a YT video):


When we use under, we mean that one thing is touching or covering something else:

The wreck of the Titanic still remains under the sea.


We use beneath when we talk about things which are at a lower level than something else:

She hid beneath the water. (= the surface of the water)


Also, beneath is less common in everyday speech.


So, is there a difference in meaning between 'beneath the sea' and 'under the sea' itself? If that depends entirely on the context, then, could you give some examples?

marked as duplicate by kiamlaluno, Nathan Tuggy, Varun Nair, ColleenV Mar 6 '18 at 13:20

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

0

Given the specific example of a body of water, such as a lake or an ocean, the intent of the phrases is no different — they both refer to something being underwater. However, the difference between "beneath" and "under" (the link provided by @ColleenV is very good) means there is a perspective difference. Here's a simple way to look at it.

  • You can be "beneath" a specific, defined something, like a mark on a wall or a limbo rod. The point here is that the reference is something clearly identifiable or definable — like the surface of the sea. You know exactly where the reference is. Therefore, from the perspective of someone on the shore watching a ship sink, they would say the ship was "sinking beneath the [surface of the] sea." We can safely ignore "surface of the" because "beneath" requires a definable reference and the use of the surface is implicit when nothing else is specificed (humans being basically lazy, after all). The person on the shore can easily see the surface of the sea as a point of reference, but cannot see the vast body of water (in three dimensions).

  • However, when you are "under" something, that something is obscure and poorly defined, like a large volume of something. That's why you are "under her authority" and not "beneath her authority," because there's no clear something you can use to measure whether or not you're actually beneath anything. The same goes for fog (under a blanket of fog), a body of water (under the sea), or anything else generally deemed "unmeasurable" (under a cloud of fear). Thus, a diver wholly underwater would describe him/herself as "under the sea" because the surface is no longer particularly visible and the vast body of water is observable.

Curiously, the phrases "within the sea" or "inside the sea" sound wrong to me. I'm sure it's due to their being little or never used. There's nothing wrong or ungrammatical about either phrase, they're simply not how I've heard the concept expressed.

  • 1
    To me, "within the sea" sounds acceptable only in a generic sense of being generally found within the sea. For example, "Within the sea, there are more species of invertebrates than within freshwater environments," is a sentence that sounds natural. "The Titanic sank and is now within the sea," sounds very unnatural. – Canadian Yankee Mar 4 '18 at 20:30

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