1

Tom wants to check, if he has his nobile phone with him. Could I say then:

Tom put his hand to his pocket to check for his mobile.
1
  • 2
    Your sentence is good as is.
    – TimR
    Commented Oct 8, 2014 at 13:52

2 Answers 2

2

Could be shortened to just "Tom checked his pocket for his phone." The fact that it was a cell or cordless phone and that he used his hand to do it would be obvious to virtually everyone.

0

You could write it as "Tom put his hand into his pocket to check for his mobile".
Another better way to say this will be :
"Tom reached for his pocket to check for his mobile".

5
  • You cannot really "reach for your pocket". You can reach for your pen, or reach for your gun. Reach for implies the item is nearby, not on one's person.
    – TimR
    Commented Oct 8, 2014 at 13:52
  • It doesn't matter if the item is nearby or on you. Reach for means extending one's grasp to something. It can be your pocket too.
    – v kumar
    Commented Oct 9, 2014 at 4:02
  • @TRomano: cargo pants? It's either a reach or a leg lift with those to get the lower pockets. :)
    – LawrenceC
    Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 20:25
  • 1
    You can only reach for something that you can take up and hold in your hand. That's true even when one is told to "reach for the sky, pardner". Pocketses don't qualify. :-)
    – TimR
    Commented Nov 7, 2014 at 22:53
  • Even "to his pocket" (as is written in the question) is fine as if he is just touching the outside of the pocket to feel through the fabric. I do that frequently, especially in winter when I'm wearing gloves and might not be able to get my hands into my pockets.
    – miltonaut
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 13:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .