I had a look into the Oxford Collocation Dictionary for the items COVER and COVERED and found the following examples:
The cars were all covered IN snow.
I was covered IN blood.
The children were completely covered WITH mud.
The path was now completely covered WITH thick snow.
Each body was covered BY a blanket.
After that, I felt some sort of uncertainty about which preposition to use in which specific situation and thought, that it might be rather helpful if native English speakers could cast some light of revelation upon the matter of how they feel it.
For example, firstly, I was intending to use a sentence The playground was covered by asphalt. But now I feel that all said prepositions may be used in it but with slightly different sense of meaning.
Is there any difference between the American and the British use?
Hi Igor,
I fully agree with Abdullah -- his advise on understanding the meaning of the sentence in its totality is really helpful. If I may just add, we use "in" when the object is embedded in something else or included in something abstract.
Example:
After abandoning his truck in the blizzard, he returned to find it covered in snow. (embedded)
His presidential election was covered in controversy. (abstract)
The uses of "with" or "in" are interchangeable and native speakers will have no problem with either "cover in" or "cover with". However, as I mentioned, "in" has the meaning of being embedded, or incorporated into something else.
We also use "cover by" to describe protection: You should be covered by insurance lest you are involved in an accident.
The way I think about it is by the meaning. What is the meaning that you want in the sentence? 'Covered with/in' is used for something that there is a lot of. For example, covered in snow, covered with snow (both are correct).
'Covered by' means that the thing is actually covered and you can't see it. Notice the difference in meaning between this one and saying 'with/in'. When you say 'covered in snow', the thing is not actually covered completely. You can still see it. When a body is covered by a blanket, the blanket covers the body and you can't see it.
You cay say "covered by snow," but that has a different meaning. It means that the thing is completely covered by snow and you can't see it. Like if you left your bicycle outside and there was a lot of snow and your bicycle got buried under the snow, you can say, "My bike has been covered by the snow."Totally agree with Abdullah.
Covered in = unintentional / can probably still see the real object
covered in mud
covered in snow
covered in dust
Covered by = can't see the real object / could be either unintentional or intentional
covered by a blanket
covered by asphalt
covered with = intentional, to conceal something
spots covered with makeup
covered by and covered with may have some overlap.
Yes, something that is "covered in" asphalt is under and embedded in a thick layer of asphalt.
Therefore, we will write: "Pompeii was covered in lava during a volcanic eruption." while "The tabletop is covered with dust."
Thank you guys for all your responds.
To Jerry: Yes, the same we can do in Russian - to use canonical expressions or to change them for the purpose of our momentary mood, a manner of speaking, environment to whom we are speaking, etc.
