4 ms·

In this case the phrase is a more artistic way of describing the beginning of a fight. Think of "John set upon Mike angrily" as John set, or selected, Mike as h

In this case the phrase is a more artistic way of describing the beginning of a fight. Think of "John set upon Mike angrily" as John set, or selected, Mike as his target. It's also a great example of the topic at hand because the same phrase could be used like "The book was set upon the table." Describing a book that was placed on a table. Each version uses the same common vocabulary, to describe wildly different things.

toothbrush 10y ago
Or, John was set upon going to the movies tonight, but his friend refused to join him. Admittedly, that sounds a bit old-fashioned.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Set on is probably a bit more natural in that context although I'm not sure either is particularly common phraseology.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  Honestly any use of upon sounds old-fashioned. It's generally been replaced by on, except in a few contexts by up. Even Google defines it as "a more formal term for on".
johnlbevan2 10y ago
Whilst this ambiguity is a pain for those learning the language and for clarity, it's also one of the things which makes English a great language for puns/wordplay. I suspect that having a reduced vocabulary would likely increase the chances of ambiguity, so could be a great source of CNL puns.
johnlbevan2 10y ago
Or phonetically similar / by moving a space: "John was set up on a date" - someone arranged a romantic encounter for John. "John was setup on a date" - on some specific day John was assembled. "John was set upon a date" - John assaulted a piece of fruit.
- aptwebapps 10y ago
  The last one made me laugh but you need to remove the 'was'.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    No, it still works. Someone else has caused John to assault the fruit. "The guard dog was set upon an intruder, while John was set upon a date."
    - tgb 10y ago
      Or, alternatively, it means that John was placed on top of a fruit.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Doesn't the "was" change who the action applies to? E.g. "John assaulted a date" vs "John was assaulted by a date"? I'm not entirely sure "John was set upon a date" makes sense. Then again, I've never been great with the specific rules of English, even though it's my first language (likely because it's my first language, and I learned it not as rules, but through immersion as a child).
      - fenomas 10y ago
        GP means it in the sense of "The attack dog was set upon the intruder" (e.g. by its master).
      - schoen 10y ago
        "Set upon" can mean either "to begin to attack" or "to cause to begin to attack", although in the latter case the target of attack goes between "set" and "upon": The dog set upon the cat. (began to attack the cat) The person set the dog upon the cat. (caused the dog to begin to attack the cat) The second meaning could make sense in the original sentence with John being the attacker, a date (fruit) being the target of attack, and an unspecified party being the one who caused John to attack. In this case there is a past-tense passive with "was" + the past participle of the verb (like "was liked", "was seen", "was taken"), but the past participle of "set upon" is identical to the present form, so "was set upon" means either "was attacked" or was caused to attack. But only the second meaning is plausible when followed by "a date", as opposed to "by a date". "John was set upon a date" → John was caused to attack a date "John was set upon by a date" → John was attacked by a date This reminds me that phrasal verbs really are one of the trickiest things in English. Some of my non-native speaker friends have several books just about this topic, because it's so subtle and pervasive in English.

toothbrush 10y ago

Or, John was set upon going to the movies tonight, but his friend refused to join him. Admittedly, that sounds a bit old-fashioned.

ghaff 10y ago
Set on is probably a bit more natural in that context although I'm not sure either is particularly common phraseology.
jdmichal 10y ago
Honestly any use of upon sounds old-fashioned. It's generally been replaced by on, except in a few contexts by up. Even Google defines it as "a more formal term for on".

johnlbevan2 10y ago

Whilst this ambiguity is a pain for those learning the language and for clarity, it's also one of the things which makes English a great language for puns/wordplay. I suspect that having a reduced vocabulary would likely increase the chances of ambiguity, so could be a great source of CNL puns.

johnlbevan2 10y ago

Or phonetically similar / by moving a space: "John was set up on a date" - someone arranged a romantic encounter for John. "John was setup on a date" - on some specific day John was assembled. "John was set upon a date" - John assaulted a piece of fruit.

aptwebapps 10y ago
The last one made me laugh but you need to remove the 'was'.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  No, it still works. Someone else has caused John to assault the fruit. "The guard dog was set upon an intruder, while John was set upon a date."
  - tgb 10y ago
    Or, alternatively, it means that John was placed on top of a fruit.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Doesn't the "was" change who the action applies to? E.g. "John assaulted a date" vs "John was assaulted by a date"? I'm not entirely sure "John was set upon a date" makes sense. Then again, I've never been great with the specific rules of English, even though it's my first language (likely because it's my first language, and I learned it not as rules, but through immersion as a child).
    - fenomas 10y ago
      GP means it in the sense of "The attack dog was set upon the intruder" (e.g. by its master).
    - schoen 10y ago
      "Set upon" can mean either "to begin to attack" or "to cause to begin to attack", although in the latter case the target of attack goes between "set" and "upon": The dog set upon the cat. (began to attack the cat) The person set the dog upon the cat. (caused the dog to begin to attack the cat) The second meaning could make sense in the original sentence with John being the attacker, a date (fruit) being the target of attack, and an unspecified party being the one who caused John to attack. In this case there is a past-tense passive with "was" + the past participle of the verb (like "was liked", "was seen", "was taken"), but the past participle of "set upon" is identical to the present form, so "was set upon" means either "was attacked" or was caused to attack. But only the second meaning is plausible when followed by "a date", as opposed to "by a date". "John was set upon a date" → John was caused to attack a date "John was set upon by a date" → John was attacked by a date This reminds me that phrasal verbs really are one of the trickiest things in English. Some of my non-native speaker friends have several books just about this topic, because it's so subtle and pervasive in English.