# bawl over a bagel



## felicity.zyy

Hi!
We met at the hospital cafeteria the day Grams was admitted. He was covering a story and I was bawling over a bagel. So he handed me a napkin.
I know "bawl" means "to cry loudly", but what does “over” here means?


----------



## sdgraham

You might see: knickers in a twist / cry over spilt milk


----------



## Language Hound

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with crying over spilt milk...
The way I see it, there are two possible meanings:

1) Over, definition #12 in the WR dictionary: "in reference to, concerning, or about"
It may seem strange, but keep in mind that her grandmother was just admitted to the hospital.
Sometimes when people are upset, the smallest thing can set them off.

2) Over, definition #1 in the WR dictionary: "above in place or position"
Since they are in the hospital cafeteria, I imagine the bagel was on the table she was sitting at, and she was literally crying from a position above the bagel.

Personally, I favor the first meaning.


----------



## elroy

Language Hound said:


> Personally, I favor the first meaning.


 Me too.


----------



## sdgraham

Language Hound said:


> Personally, I favor the first meaning.


----------



## Language Hound

Here's another example of _bawl over _(meaning #1) I found online:
*As For Us, We Continue To Bawl Over ‘Old Yeller’*
Source


----------



## felicity.zyy

Thank you all.


----------



## velisarius

"Over"= while consuming.

_We talked over a cup of coffee. 
I thought about the problem over lunch_.

I see the OP's sentence as saying that the speaker was having a good cry while eating a bagel. But what is the context?


----------



## tittiugo

Language Hound said:


> 1) Over, definition #12 in the WR dictionary: *"in reference to, concerning, or about"*
> It may seem strange, but keep in mind that her grandmother was just admitted to the hospital.
> Sometimes when people are upset, the smallest thing can set them off.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I favor the first meaning.



So LH,

what does the "bagel" symbolize?...a bread roll?


----------



## Orble

Yes, a type of chewy (but delicious) bread made by boiling the dough before you bake it.


----------



## tittiugo

Orble said:


> Yes, a type of chewy (but delicious) bread made by boiling the dough before you bake it.


Thank you Orble...but I thought "bagel" symbolized some abstract thinking...


----------



## velisarius

Bagel, bawling. The look and sound of the two words is important. I guess the writer chose "bagel" rather than "croissant" or "sandwich" for a touch of self-deprecating humour. "Bawling over a bagel" is catchy.

Apart from that, I think a bagel is just a bagel here.


----------



## tittiugo

velisarius said:


> Apart from that, I think a bagel is just a bagel here.




So, just a REAL bagel?


----------



## velisarius

Well, I did ask for context...but until further notice it's probably just a bagel.


----------



## tittiugo

Ok, thank you.


----------



## Andygc

I, too, favour Language Hound's meaning 2, not the figurative meaning 1. (As post 8) "I" was crying and the tears were falling on or near her breakfast bagel.


----------



## felicity.zyy

velisarius said:


> Well, I did ask for context...but until further notice it's probably just a bagel.


Actually, Those sentences are from the American TV show CHARMED. A girl was talking to her sister. Here is their dialogue:

-I'm glad to hear you and Jeremy are still together. Where did you meet him anyway?
-We met at the hospital cafeteria the day Grams was admitted. He was covering a story and I was bawling over a bagel. So he handed me a napkin.
-How romantic.
-As a matter of fact, it was. The napkin had his phone number on it.


----------



## Barque

I agree with post #8. 

over (WR dictionary): while doing or attending to: _to discuss the situation over lunch._


----------



## heypresto

So it seems it was just a bagel, and she was crying while eating it.


----------



## elroy

heypresto said:


> So it seems it was just a bagel, and she was crying while eating it.


 How do you figure?  The context doesn’t clarify it for me.


----------



## Packard

velisarius said:


> "Over"= while consuming.
> 
> _We talked over a cup of coffee.
> I thought about the problem over lunch_.
> 
> I see the OP's sentence as saying that the speaker was having a good cry while eating a bagel. But what is the context?



This would be my exact interpretation too, though I would add that it probably implies that the crying was done in the morning hours (bagels are a traditional breakfast food).

Note:  This is not a fixed or conventional phrase in American English.


----------



## se16teddy

Packard said:


> This would be my exact interpretation too, though I would add that it probably implies that the crying was done in the morning hours (bagels are a traditional breakfast food).


Also, bagels might be comfort eating. _Crying over my lettuce leaf_ would not have the same effect.


----------



## elroy

I still don’t see how everyone is so sure.  The context given so far doesn’t tell us which interpretation is right.


----------



## Barque

It's a reasonable conclusion to draw. The speaker's at the hospital where her grandmother had been admitted and she's more likely to be crying out of concern for her grandmother than such a trivial matter as the quality of a bagel. So "over a bagel" is more likely to mean "while having a bagel", with the bagel mentioned to add a touch of humour, as Velisarius said.

It's also unlikely that "over" refers to the position of the speaker's head relative to the bagel, because that isn't something you'd normally consider significant enough to mention.


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> she's more likely to be crying out of concern for her grandmother than such a trivial matter as the quality of a bagel.


 I can only quote Language Hound here:


Language Hound said:


> It may seem strange, but keep in mind that her grandmother was just admitted to the hospital.
> Sometimes when people are upset, the smallest thing can set them off.





Barque said:


> It's also unlikely that "over" refers to the position of the speaker's head relative to the bagel, because that isn't something you'd normally consider significant enough to mention.


 Isn't this an argument for the other interpretation (Language Hound's #1)?


----------



## Packard

elroy said:


> I still don’t see how everyone is so sure.  The context given so far doesn’t tell us which interpretation is right.



It is a standard type of phrasing.

Employee:  _Hey, Boss.  I want a raise.  I can't live on this salary anymore._

Boss:  _OK.  Let's discuss this over lunch._ ["Over lunch" means in this case "while we are eating lunch".]


----------



## Language Hound

velisarius said:


> "Over"= while consuming.
> 
> _We talked over a cup of coffee.
> I thought about the problem over lunch_.
> 
> I see the OP's sentence as saying that the speaker was having a good cry while eating a bagel...


Yes, this is a third possibility that didn't occur to me when I was posting.
I agree with Elroy that the context (the dialog this is from) does not clarify which meaning of "over" is meant.
@tittiugo: Others have answered for me: The bagel doesn't symbolize anything; it's just a bagel.


Language Hound said:


> ...
> 1) Over, definition #12 in the WR dictionary: "in reference to, concerning, or about"
> It may seem strange, but keep in mind that her grandmother was just admitted to the hospital.
> Sometimes when people are upset, the smallest thing can set them off...


To illustrate this possible meaning, here is an example I made up.
The person in question is very upset about her grandmother being admitted to the hospital (she may be dying) and goes to the cafeteria to get a bagel
(because that's what she feels like eating). The cafeteria is out of bagels and, because she is so upset, this pushes her over the edge and she begins to cry.
Just an imagined example because, as I already stated, the context does not specifically clarify what the meaning of "over" is or why she is crying.


----------



## Packard

Language Hound said:


> Yes, this is a third possibility that didn't occur to me when I was posting.
> I agree with Elroy that the context (the dialog this is from) does not clarify which meaning of "over" is meant.
> @tittiugo: Others have answered for me: The bagel doesn't symbolize anything; it's just a bagel.
> To illustrate this possible meaning, here is an example I made up.
> The person in question is very upset about her grandmother being admitted to the hospital (she may be dying) and goes to the cafeteria to get a bagel
> (because that's what she feels like eating). The cafeteria is out of bagels and, because she is so upset, this pushes her over the edge and she begins to cry.
> Just an imagined example because, as I already stated, the context does not specifically clarify what the meaning of "over" is or why she is crying.



It seems a stretch, but possible.  It is the final straw.  She is not really crying over the bagel, but the bagel is the catalyst for the tears.  In that case I could imagine her saying, "Here I am in the hospital, my mother in the intensive care ward and I'm crying over a damned bagel!"


----------



## Language Hound

> -I'm glad to hear you and Jeremy are still together. Where did you meet him anyway?
> -We met at the hospital cafeteria the day Grams was admitted. He was covering a story *and I was bawling over a bagel.* So he handed me a napkin.
> -How romantic.
> -As a matter of fact, it was. The napkin had his phone number on it.


Having read this and some of the surrounding dialog in the script, I feel it's fair to say that understanding the meaning of "over" in the phrase in question is not really
crucial to the plot.  If the OP is just trying to understand it for her own sake, I'd say it's enough to understand that the person is crying and a bagel is somehow involved!
If the OP is translating the script, then I would say she will just have to pick whichever of the three meanings (maybe someone will come up with a possible fourth one!)
she prefers as "over" is ambiguous here.


----------



## elroy

Packard said:


> It is a standard type of phrasing.
> 
> Employee:  _Hey, Boss.  I want a raise.  I can't live on this salary anymore._
> 
> Boss:  _OK.  Let's discuss this over lunch._ ["Over lunch" means in this case "while we are eating lunch".]


 That doesn't answer my question.   My question was how do we *know *from the context which interpretation is right. 


Language Hound said:


> "over" is ambiguous here.


----------



## Barque

I suppose it might be possible for a bagel to push someone over the edge, but apart from the fact that such a thing isn't at all as common as crying from grief over a close relative's illness, there's nothing in the passage to suggest that that's what happened. There is, however, mention of a grandmother in hospital.

Given there are two possible reasons, one specifically mentioned and a common occurrence, and the other not mentioned and uncommon, I choose the former and I don't see "over" as ambiguous. The passage doesn't specifically say that she was crying over her grandmother but everything doesn't have to be, and often isn't, specifically stated.


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> it might be possible for a bagel to push someone over the edge


 Bawling for me doesn't mean you've been pushed over the edge.


Barque said:


> The passage doesn't specifically say that she was crying over her grandmother but everything doesn't have to be, and often isn't, specifically stated.


 Of course!  But Reading #1 (she is upset over something related to the bagel) is not at all incompatible with her being upset over her grandmother's illness (or injury, but let's just assume illness for simplicity's sake); the two are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, her grandmother's illness is precisely the reason Language Hound, sdgraham, and I are even entertaining #1.  Precisely because it's normally so unlikely (as you say), it would take something truly distressing (a grandmother's illness) to turn something trivial into an upsetting incident that induces bawling.

We are in no disagreement that she's upset because her grandmother is ill.  The question is simply whether the bagel made her upset _because of _her already existing distress, or whether the bagel just happened to be physically below her while she was crying.


----------



## velisarius

elroy said:


> the bagel just happened to be *physically below *her


I don't think that's what's suggested by "over a bagel", whichever way you interpret it.


----------



## elroy

velisarius said:


> I don't think that's what's suggested by "over a bagel", whichever way you interpret it.


 Can you elaborate?  I was referencing Reading #2 (which, if I'm not mistaken, was endorsed by Andygc and Barque): 





Language Hound said:


> 2) Over, definition #1 in the WR dictionary: "above in place or position"
> Since they are in the hospital cafeteria, I imagine the bagel was on the table she was sitting at, and she was literally crying from a position above the bagel.


----------



## velisarius

elroy said:


> Can you elaborate?  I was referencing Reading #2 (which, if I'm not mistaken, was endorsed by Andygc and Barque):



Sorry, I meant whether you interpret it as "while she was eating the bagel" or "about a bagel" in the way that someone might "cry over spilt milk". The third reading as "physically above the bagel" seems a little stretched to me. If tears had been mentioned, "crying over the bagel" might induce me to imagine them running down her cheeks and dripping all over the bagel.

I don't think it matters a whole lot, anyway.


----------



## elroy

I see, thanks!  Reading over the posts again, I think I was mistaken about Barque's view, as he clearly indicated he supported your reading (#3).  The only support for #2 (physically over a bagel) comes from Andygc, but he also endorsed #3, so perhaps he believes both apply (which I can see; if you're crying while eating a bagel, the bagel is in all likelihood physically below you!).

I will say that one possible support for #2 or #3 is that the guy handed her a _napkin_, not a _tissue_! (Hmm...but I guess that could've been because it's easier to write his number on a napkin than a tissue!)

(I agree that it probably doesn't matter for the plot of the movie, but it's a very interesting language question!)


----------



## Language Hound

Barque said:


> I suppose it might be possible for a bagel to push someone over the edge, but apart from the fact that such a thing isn't at all as common as crying from grief over a close relative's illness, *there's nothing in the passage to suggest that that's what happened.* There is, however, mention of a grandmother in hospital.
> 
> Given there are two possible reasons, one specifically mentioned and a common occurrence, and the other not mentioned and uncommon, I choose the former and I don't see "over" as ambiguous. The passage doesn't specifically say that she was crying over her grandmother but *everything doesn't have to be, and often isn't, specifically stated.*


Note: above text bolded by me.
There's nothing in the text that confirms 100% the meaning of _bawling over a bagel._
Allow me to invent another scenario which you might find more convincing than the one I made up in post #34 which supports the meaning of "in reference to, concerning, or about" (a meaning illustrated by the headline I quoted in post #6: _*As For Us, We Continue To Bawl Over ‘Old Yeller’*_).

The person in question is very upset about her grandmother being admitted to the hospital (she may be dying). She goes to the hospital cafeteria, where she sees a bagel,
which triggers the painful memory of her last conversation with her grandmother.  She was visiting her grandmother during her lunch break.  Her grandmother asked her if she could go buy her a bagel because she really felt like eating one.  She knew that if she did that she would be late getting back to work so she told her grandmother she would get her a bagel another day. She never did and now she realizes her grandmother may die and she regrets that she didn't buy her a bagel that day.

There's really no limit to the possible scenarios in support of the "in reference to, concerning, or about" meaning of "over."
I still maintain that "over" is ambiguous in the OP's text and stick to the advice I gave her in my post #36.


----------



## elroy

Language Hound said:


> There's really no limit to the possible scenarios in support of the "in reference to, concerning, or about" meaning of "over."
> I still maintain that "over" is ambiguous in the OP's text


  


Language Hound said:


> If the OP is translating the script, then I would say she will just have to pick whichever of the three meanings (maybe someone will come up with a possible fourth one!)
> she prefers as "over" is ambiguous here.


 Or she could attempt to replicate the ambiguity in the target language, if that's possible.


----------



## Barque

Language Hound said:


> There's really no limit to the possible scenarios in support of the "in reference to, concerning, or about" meaning of "over."


I agree with that. But I don't think we are arguing over the number of possible scenarios. We are talking about _what the speaker meant_, on the basis of available context. I believe that my interpretation (and that of the others with the same opinion) of "over" is the only one supported by the context. The context tells us the speaker's grandmother is in hospital and she's crying, and this is a common enough cause-and-effect occurrence. There's nothing to say that the bagel has any connection to her tears (other than that she's eating it at that time). I don't think the possibility that it _could_ be connected is good enough reason to say that the meaning of "over" isn't clear.

Let's say the speaker had said: _My father called me yesterday to say that my grandmother had had a heart attack and was in hospital. I sat crying with my book in my hands for an hour. _The natural conclusion is that she cried because of the news, not because she was reading a sad story.


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> I believe that my interpretation (and that of the others with the same opinion) of "over" is *the only one supported by the context*.


 (emphasis mine) 

Language Hound and I have amply demonstrated that that is not the case. 


Barque said:


> _I sat crying with my book in my hands for an hour._


 This is not an analogous sentence, as it does not use "over."


----------



## Barque

elroy said:


> Language Hound and I have *amply demonstrated* that that is not the case.


You wouldn't have four people disagreeing with you if that was the case.


elroy said:


> This is not an analogous sentence, as it does not use "over."


My intention wasn't to come up with a sentence using "over". I meant that a sentence could have more than one possible meaning in theory but not be ambiguous.


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> You wouldn't have four people disagreeing with you if that was the case.


 We have amply demonstrated that #1 is supported by the context.  People can still disagree about which reading they believe is more _likely_.  I don't think that velisarius, heypresto, or Packard would say that #1 is not supported by the context (but I'll let them speak for themselves).

Relevant quotes:


Packard said:


> It seems a stretch, but possible. It is the final straw. She is not really crying over the bagel, but the bagel is the catalyst for the tears. In that case I could imagine her saying, "Here I am in the hospital, my mother in the intensive care ward and I'm crying over a damned bagel!"





velisarius said:


> Sorry, I meant whether you interpret it as "while she was eating the bagel" or "about a bagel" in the way that someone might "cry over spilt milk".






Barque said:


> My intention wasn't to come up with a sentence using "over".


 But it's the word "over" that makes the sentence ambiguous.

Your sentence is not ambiguous.  The possibility that the person was crying because of the story is something that can only be deduced from the _context_, not from the actual words in the sentence.  In our sentence, however, the _word_ "over" can actually mean more than one thing.


----------



## Barque

elroy said:


> Your sentence is not ambiguous.


Precisely the point I was making. Neither is the OP's sentence.


elroy said:


> The possibility that the person was crying because of the story is something that can only be deduced from the _context_, not from the actual words in the sentence.


Yes, that's my point. The context of my sentence _doesn't_ suggest that the book made her cry. You could interpret it as meaning the book made her cry only if you looked at just the words and ignored the overall context.


elroy said:


> In our sentence, however, the _word_ "over" can actually mean more than one thing.


Yes, it can possibly mean a lot of things, but that doesn't mean any of them could apply. You have to choose the one that's the most likely, given the context. I understand your argument as: _"Over" has more than one meaning, so it's ambiguous. _I don't agree with that.


----------



## elroy

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying there is more than one meaning _that fits in this sentence_ (even without context).


Barque said:


> You could interpret it as meaning the book made her cry only if you looked at just the words and ignored the overall context.


 No, you couldn't.  The preposition "with" doesn't allow that interpretation.  Only prior knowledge and context could allow you to understand that the person was crying because of the book.  The sentence itself is simply saying that they were crying while holding a book.

In our sentence, on the other hand, "bawling over a bagel" has three possible meanings even without further context.  The context we were given doesn't rule out any of them.


----------



## Barque

elroy said:


> In our sentence, on the other hand, "bawling over a book" has three possible meanings even without further context. The context we were given doesn't rule out any of them.


That doesn't mean all of them apply, does it? Only one meaning can apply.

I have provided reasons for my argument that the meaning of "while eating a bagel" applies, which are that (a) her grandmother's illness is likely to have caused her grief and (b) breaking down because a stale or poorly made bagel was the last straw isn't exactly a common occurrence (and especially when there's nothing in the passage to indicate that there was something wrong with or significant about the bagel).

You have said nothing to convince me that it's just as likely that the bagel played any part in making her cry, other than saying that it's possible. I don't deny that it's possible in theory but I'm very sure that's not what the writer meant.


----------



## Trochfa

velisarius said:


> "Over"= while consuming.
> 
> _We talked over a cup of coffee.
> I thought about the problem over lunch_.
> 
> I see the OP's sentence as saying that the speaker was having a good cry while eating a bagel.


 

I agree with post#8. I find it the most natural explanation without a great deal more context.

Piper's grandmother has been admitted to hospital and so she, Piper, has gone to the cafeteria. To my mind, she is more likely to be upset by the fact that her grandmother has been admitted than from memories or other stimuli caused in some way by experiencing a bagel. Her grandmother might have given her bagels as a child and that might be what upset her, but we are not told that. All we are told is that her grandmother is in hospital and surely that would be cause enough for many people to be upset.

Therefore, I think she is crying about her grandmother's condition while having/consuming a bagel.

Just like "crying over a cup of coffee/tea." It's not the tea or coffee that makes you cry, it's just that you happen to be having it at a time when you are upset.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10842006/3/Season-1-A-Charmed-Beginning


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> That doesn't mean all of them apply, does it? Only one meaning can apply.


 In this particular case, more than one can apply.  #1, #2, and #3 are all compatible with each other, so they could all apply at the same time (and, therefore, any two of them could apply to the exclusion of the third).


Barque said:


> I have provided reasons for my argument that the meaning of "while eating a bagel" applies, which are that (a) her grandmother's illness is likely to have caused her grief and (b) breaking down because a stale or poorly made bagel was the last straw isn't exactly a common occurrence


 As I've shown, neither of these is incompatible with #1.

These two points certainly _allow_ #3, but they also allow #1.  There is nothing about these two points that _rules out_ #1.  This is the point I've been trying to make. 


Barque said:


> You have said nothing to convince me that it's just as likely that the bagel played any part in making her cry


 I'm not sure how to convince you of that other than saying that I don't find the scenario far-fetched in the least.  In other words, I can _totally_ relate (hence, my immediate approval in #4).  Perhaps this has to do with our respective life experiences; in my life experience, #1 is an entirely plausible and relatable situation (even if it's statistically _less likely_ than other situations).

It also occurs to me that the intonation could help us figure out which one was meant.  (This was part of a TV show.)  If I'm able to find this scene online, I will listen/watch and report back.

In any event, even if it turns out #3 is right, "over" is indisputably ambiguous here - and, in my view, #1 is very conceivable.


----------



## Barque

elroy said:


> In this particular case, more than one can apply.


When I said only one meaning can apply, I meant that the writer would have had only one meaning in mind. 


elroy said:


> There is nothing about these two points that _rules out_ #1.


No, perhaps not. But I'm sure you'll agree that the writer would have intended only one meaning. I don't believe that the possibility of the bagel contributing to her tears is anywhere as likely a reason as her grandmother's illness alone.   

When we have a possible _and_ probable reason for her crying that's specifically mentioned - her grandmother's illness - I don't see the point in contemplating the _possibility _that the bagel might have had something to do with it, especially when there's nothing to indicate that.



elroy said:


> I'm not sure how to convince you of that other than saying that I don't find the scenario far-fetched in the least.


But you don't have to convince me. I entered this argument because, in your post #23, you asked how everyone was "so sure" that the "while eating" meaning applied. I took that as being addressed to me as well since I was one of those who interpreted it that way, and responded, and continued responding when you addressed your posts to me.


----------



## elroy

I'm not saying more than one meaning is intended.  I'm saying we can't know for sure which one was intended.


> When we have a possible _and_ probable reason for her crying that's specifically mentioned - her grandmother's illness - I don't see the point in contemplating the _possibility _that the bagel might have had something to do with it, especially when there's nothing to indicate that.


 Of course there's a point.  The word "over" has that meaning, *and* it's a perfectly compatible and conceivable scenario.  #1 does not contradict the aspect "upset over grandmother's illness"; that aspect is _included_ in #1, with an _additional_ aspect (the bagel setting her off).  Again, this does not at all require any stretch of the imagination for me, and the fact that nothing in the prior context specifically refers to the bagel does not make the interpretation any less likely for me.  Clever writing often omits direct references.


----------



## Packard

Re-reading all the posts I remain convinced that "over a bagel" is a way of saying "during a meal that occurs (usually) in the morning".  I stated that case in post #26 where I had the boss suggest that they  "Discuss it over lunch".  

I am not convinced that a bagel was necessarily consumed.  

I've been known to say, "Let's meet at Starbucks and discuss this over a frappuccino." despite the fact that I always order a black coffee, never a frappuccino.  

"Frappuccino" is shorthand for "any Starbucks beverage you wish" as it is one of their more expensive entries.

I might say, "She moped over a bagel" when in reality she had ordered a bialy, another traditional Jewish favorite (via Poland).


----------



## Barque

elroy said:


> I'm not saying more than one meaning is intended.  I'm saying we can't know for sure which one was intended.


Yes, I understood that. You said that as early as posts 20 and 23.


elroy said:


> with an _additional_ aspect (the bagel setting her off). Again, this does not at all require any stretch of the imagination for me, and the fact that nothing in the prior context specifically refers to the bagel does not make the interpretation any less likely for me.


I'm not sure how to answer this. It's such a stretch for me that I wouldn't have thought of it at all.


elroy said:


> Clever writing often omits direct references.


I said something similar earlier. Just because the passage doesn't specifically say that she was crying only because of her grandmother, that doesn't change the fact that that's the obvious reason. 


Packard said:


> I might say, "She moped over a bagel" when in reality she had ordered a bialy, another traditional Jewish favorite (via Poland).


I was just thinking that perhaps she may not have ordered a bagel at all, but just used it for the slight alliterative effect with "bawling". She could just as easily have cried over a croissant or wept over her waffles.


----------



## elroy

Barque said:


> I was just thinking that perhaps she may not have ordered a bagel at all, but just used it for the slight alliterative effect with "bawling".


 _That_ I find very unlikely, personally.


----------



## Barque

We all think of unlikely things now and then.


----------



## Packard

Barque said:


> Yes, I understood that. You said that as early as posts 20 and 23.
> 
> I was just thinking that perhaps she may not have ordered a bagel at all, but just used it for the slight alliterative effect with "bawling". She could just as easily have cried over a croissant or wept over her waffles.



Sobbed over her sausages.


----------



## elroy

Let me rephrase: "Bagel," in my experience, is not used as a generic term; the idea that someone would say they were "bawling over a *bagel*" when a literal bagel was not involved is so incredibly unlikely that I think it's safe to say that's an impossible interpretation.

I find the usages described in Packard's #50 totally incongruous with anything I know about American English.


----------



## Packard

elroy said:


> Let me rephrase: "Bagel," in my experience, is not used as a generic term; the idea that someone would say they were "bawling over a *bagel*" when a literal bagel was not involved is so incredibly unlikely that I think it's safe to say that's an impossible interpretation.
> 
> I find the usages described in Packard's #50 totally incongruous with anything I know about American English.



You've never said, "I'll meet you for coffee at Starbucks." Knowing that the other party is more likely to order tea?  Really?  You would say, "I'll meet you at Starbucks where you can order tea and I can have my regular black coffee".


----------



## elroy

"Coffee," yes, but not "frappuccino"!   "Coffee" _is_ used generically.

Also, there's a big difference between references to the future and references to the past (as in this context).  If I had tea, I would _never_ say, in reference to the past, "I thought about it over coffee."   Similarly, if someone did something while eating a croissant or a scone, I would _never_ refer to a _bagel_ in describing the situation.


Barque said:


> It's such a stretch for me that I wouldn't have thought of it at all.


 As I intimated earlier, this may be at the core of all this.  Indeed, our life experiences definitely influence our linguistic judgments and interpretations.  


Barque said:


> the fact that that's the obvious reason


 It can't be a "fact" when three native speakers find #1 entirely plausible.

I understand that _in your opinion_, #3 is by far more likely and is the "obvious" reading.  That doesn't make it a _fact_.  Can we leave it at that?


----------



## Barque

elroy said:


> It can't be a "fact" when three native speakers find #1 entirely plausible.


If something seems a fact to me, that's what I'll call it. And since we're on numbers, I believe five people including four native speakers have said they don't agree with meaning #1.


elroy said:


> Can we leave it at that?


I would have liked to end this quite some time ago. I'm surprised by your question. As I said earlier, this debate started because you wanted to know in #23 why people were so sure of the "while eating" meaning. Now, after trying over several posts to convince me of your argument, though I didn't ask for an explanation, you're asking me if we can "leave it at that".


----------



## Packard

elroy said:


> "Coffee," yes, but not "frappuccino"!   "Coffee" _is_ used generically.  [...]



Two points:

1.  Frappuccino _*is generic*_ at a Starbucks restaurant.
2.  A frappuccino is $5.00 at Starbucks, one of its most expensive beverages.  By offering to buy someone a frappuccino, I am saying, "You can order anything on the menu".  

On the other hand, when I bought a lottery ticket next door to Starbucks from the gas station and the clerk said, "Are you gonna remember me when you win the $318 million?"  And I replied, "Sure.  We'll go next door and I'll buy you a weak tea."  A clear indication of the limits of my largesse.


----------

