# Walk up to/Go up to VS Walk over/Go over to



## igiul123

Hello I'd like to know if there any differences between over and up when being used with the verbs come,walk,go...
Examples

-When I was in class she came up/came over to me and told me her secret.
-I walked up/walked over to my boss and asked for a raise.
-I went up/over to my mother and gave her a present.
-She walked to him then pointed at me.

And is adding the words up and over that important? would a native speaker always use those words in sentences like these?


----------



## lingobingo

You can use either up or over to describe a movement towards someone else. There is a slight nuance, but only in the sense that "walk over to someone" implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas "walk up to someone" implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them.


----------



## Lun-14

lingobingo said:


> "walk over to someone" implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas "walk up to someone" implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them.


Hi, Lingo.
Would you please be so kind to give examples to illustrate the difference in a clearer way?


----------



## Florentia52

It's up to you to provide the examples, Lun-14.


----------



## Lun-14

Florentia52 said:


> It's up to you to provide the examples, Lun-14.


Examples:
Mr. Jeremy went up/over to his student and slapped him.
Mr. Jeremy walked up/over to his student and slapped him.

Please explain the difference between "walk up", "walk over", "go over" and "go up".
Thanks


----------



## lingobingo

Lun-14 said:


> Examples:
> Mr. Jeremy went up/over to his student and slapped him.
> Mr. Jeremy walked up/over to his student and slapped him.
> 
> Please explain the difference between "walk up", "walk over", "go over" and "go up".



The difference is marginal, as already explained in #2.


----------



## Florentia52

As lingobingo said in #2, "'walk over to someone' implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas 'walk up to someone' implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them."

You haven't given any context for your sentences, but "went up/over to" could be used to describe someone in a wheelchair, for example, while "went/walked over to" would not be used if the distance between the two was short.

_[Cross-posted with lingobingo]_


----------



## Lun-14

Florentia52 said:


> but "went up/over to" could be used to describe someone in a wheelchair, for example, while "went/walked over to" would not be used if the distance between the two was short.


I'm sorry, I don't understand.
Can you please clarify what you're trying to say?


----------



## heypresto

In short, and as always, _context_ matters. And you haven't given any.

Who is going/walking up/over to whom? And why? And what is the distance between them?


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> Who is going/walking up/over to whom? And why?


Please see #5.



heypresto said:


> And what is the distance between them?


Jeremy is a teacher. He enters his classroom, walks/goes (up/over) to his student sitting on the last bench, and slaps him.


----------



## heypresto

I think lingobingo has already answered this in posts #6 and #2.


----------



## lingobingo

Lun-14 said:


> Jeremy is a teacher. He enters his classroom, walks/goes (up/over) to his student sitting on the last bench, and slaps him.



If that's a question, it works rather well as its own answer. 

Any of those alternatives work. There is no significant difference.


----------



## 99bottles

lingobingo said:


> You can use either up or over to describe a movement towards someone else. There is a slight nuance, but only in the sense that "walk over to someone" implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas "walk up to someone" implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them.


Could you please also explain the difference between _walk _and _go_ in such sentences?


----------



## lingobingo

There is none.


----------



## 99bottles

lingobingo said:


> You can use either up or over to describe a movement towards someone else. There is a slight nuance, but only in the sense that "walk over to someone" implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas "walk up to someone" implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them.


Could you please tell me whether I've got everything right?

_He walked to school._ (Emphasizes that his destination was school.)

_He walked over to school._ (Emphasizes that he moved from wherever he was to school.)

_He walked up to school._ (Emphasizes the destination plus his determination to get there -- though I don't see why anyone would be eager to get to school, lol.)


----------



## Roxxxannne

_He walked to school i_ndicates to me the destination and the way he habitually got there:
_He walked to school on sunny days.  When it was snowing heavily or raining or very cold, he got a ride with the neighbors.

He walked over to school _does sound to me as though it has to do with movement or with traversing some small part of the surface of the earth. To me, it sounds as though the destination is a particular place.  So I would expect _He walked over to *the* school, _as in a sentence like this:
_He used to walk over to the school on weekends to play basketball on the playground with his friends.

He walked up to school _doesn't sound natural by itself.  But I can imagine "_He stood on the sidewalk for a few minutes thinking about what he'd say to his daughter's teacher.  Then he took a deep breath and walked up to the door of the school._

On the other hand, _When my grandfather was a boy, he went to the one-room schoolhouse that sat on a hill above the center of the village.  Every morning he'd walk up to school through his father's sheep pasture. _This is habitual action in a direction: from a lower elevation to a higher one.  I don't sense anything about eagerness in the use of 'up' in this sentence.


----------



## lingobingo

Why would you say that someone “walked over to school”? Over what? It’s a mixture of expressions that doesn’t sound natural, at least without a relevant context. *Going to school* (no article or other determiner) is an idiom. As soon as you use add go/walk *over* to indicate the method of getting there, you shift the emphasis to the way of reaching the place, not the fact of it.

To *walk up to* someone or something is OK if the focus is on approaching and finally facing them/it (as I said before). You could say “He walked up to the school gates in trepidation”, but again, it’s not the same as the basic idiom of *going to school*, as a basic fact and/or a regular habit.


----------



## 99bottles

lingobingo said:


> To *walk up to* someone or something is OK if the focus is on approaching and *finally* facing them/it (as I said before).


So, you're saying that we use _walk up to_ only when there has been some earlier hesitation on the part of the one who walks?


----------



## heypresto

No, there's no hesitation implied. 

Imagine I walked towards you, and then stop when I'm close to you, and I'm facing you. You could say that I walked _up_ to you. 

A stranger might walk _up_ to me in the street to ask for directions to somewhere or hand me a leaflet or something.


----------



## 99bottles

heypresto said:


> No, there's no hesitation implied.
> 
> Imagine I walked towards you, and then stop when I'm close to you, and I'm facing you. You could say that I walked _up_ to you.
> 
> A stranger might walk _up_ to me in the street to ask for directions to somewhere or hand me a leaflet or something.


What if I'm behind you? E.g.

_The criminal walked *over/up *to her and wrapped his arm around her throat._


----------



## lingobingo

99bottles said:


> So, you're saying that we use _walk up to_ only when there has been some earlier hesitation on the part of the one who walks?


 Where did that come from? I said nothing of the sort.

go up to = go towards / approach


----------



## heypresto

99bottles said:


> What if I'm behind you? E.g.
> 
> _The criminal walked *over/up *to her and wrapped his arm around her throat._


It makes no difference where you start from.


----------



## 99bottles

heypresto said:


> It makes no difference where you start from.


So, in that sentence,_ walk up to _is better. Right?



lingobingo said:


> Where did that come from? I said nothing of the sort.
> 
> go up to = go towards / approach


I bolded the word _finally_ in your quote, which is what made me believe that.


----------



## lingobingo

That *finally* doesn’t even imply hesitation. It just indicates the endpoint, the purpose, of *going up to* someone – which is to *reach* them.


----------



## heypresto

99bottles said:


> So, in that sentence,_ walk up to _is better. Right?


It depends on the context, and where he was before he started walking towards her. If she was walking in the street, he might walk up to her, or over to her. If they were both in, say, the office, he might walk over to her. Neither is right or wrong, it's all about context and what you want to emphasise.


----------



## 99bottles

heypresto said:


> It depends on the context, and where he was before he started walking towards her. If she was walking in the street, he might walk up to her, or over to her. If they were both in, say, the office, he might walk over to her. Neither is right or wrong, it's all about context and what you want to emphasise.


So, if they're in a room and I want to emphasize his determination to harm her, it's _walked up to her_. Right?


----------



## heypresto

There are no firm rules here. You could use either 'up' or 'over' and they would both work. 'Up' tells us nothing but the fact that he approached her, and 'over' tells us that he walked from one part of the room, across some unspecified middle ground, to where she was. The determination with which he did this would somehow come from the surrounding or following words. You can either _tell_ us by using the word 'determinedly' or _show_ us by describing the way he did it which suggests determination. That is the art of writing.


----------



## 99bottles

heypresto said:


> There are no firm rules here. You could use either 'up' or 'over' and they would both work. 'Up' tells us nothing but the fact that he approached her, and 'over' tells us that he walked from one part of the room, across some unspecified middle ground, to where she was. The determination with which he did this would somehow come from the surrounding or following words. You can either _tell_ us by using the word 'determinedly' or _show_ us by describing the way he did it which suggests determination. That is the art of writing.


So, do you disagree with Post #2, which says _walk up to_ shows determination?


----------



## lingobingo

Why are you twisting my words? This is what I said, specifically describing the nuance as “slight”:


lingobingo said:


> You can use either up or over to describe a movement towards someone else. There is a slight nuance, but only in the sense that "walk over to someone" implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas "walk up to someone" implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them.


But you make it sound as though walking up to someone is something you only do when looking for a fight or intending to “harm” someone! 

walk over to someone = walk across the room to them
walk up to someone = walk towards someone in order to talk to them


----------



## heypresto

We're talking subtle nuances here. I can see what lingobingo was getting at, and agree that 'to walk up to someone' implies a more determined intention to face them, but it's only a slight implication. I don't think there is any implication of the sort you are talking about when you say the criminal was determined to hurt her.

In your story, you could use either 'up' or 'over' and it won't be wrong.

Cross-posted. With determination.


----------



## 99bottles

heypresto said:


> We're talking subtle nuances here. I can see what lingobingo was getting at, and agree that 'to walk up to someone' implies a more determined intention to face them, but it's only a slight implication. I don't think there is any implication of the sort you are talking about when you say the criminal was determined to hurt her.
> 
> In your story, you could use either 'up' or 'over' and it won't be wrong.
> 
> Cross-posted. With determination.


How about _walked up behind_? I found it in the meantime on Google Books, but I'm not sure what it means, and it has no entry in online dictionaries.


----------



## JulianStuart

99bottles said:


> How about _walked up behind_? I found it in the meantime on Google Books, but I'm not sure what it means, and it has no entry in online dictionaries.


It would be an upright version of "I crept up behind him"


----------



## 99bottles

JulianStuart said:


> It would be an upright version of "I crept up behind him"


So we use it only when the action is surreptitious?


----------



## JulianStuart

99bottles said:


> So we use it only when the action is surreptitious?


Either deliberately or unavoidably   If you want to go and talk to someone and they are not facing you, what are you going to to?  You still walk up to them and then either around them to face them, or they turn around and face you when you say something.  If they don't know you are coming we can't tell whether you are trying to be undetected or just that's where the person is but you are not trying to avoid detection.


----------



## 99bottles

JulianStuart said:


> Either deliberately or unavoidably


Wait, I'm confused. Does that mean _yes_?


----------



## JulianStuart

If you _are_ trying to avoid detection, you are being surreptitious. If you don't care about detection, are you_ still_ being surreptitious?  If you are not trying to avoid detection, and they don't know you are approaching, the undetected approach is unavoidable but not "surreptitious".


----------



## 99bottles

JulianStuart said:


> If you _are_ trying to avoid detection, you are being surreptitious. If you don't care about detection, are you_ still_ being surreptitious?  If you are not trying to avoid detection, and they don't know you are approaching, the undetected approach is unavoidable but not "surreptitious".


Is _walked up behind someone_ used in both those cases?


----------



## JulianStuart

Either way, you walk up behind someone to reach them if they are not facing you.  That is clear and deliberate.  It's whether you want avoid being detected determines whether it is surreptitious or not.


----------



## heypresto

It simply means they approached the person from a position that was behind the person.


----------



## cidertree

99bottles said:


> Is _walked up behind someone_ used in both those cases?


"_walked up behind someone" _is used to indicate that you approached someone who was facing away from you, nothing more, nothing less. Your intent in approaching them is _not_ implicit in the expression.


----------



## 99bottles

lingobingo said:


> You can use either up or over to describe a movement towards someone else. There is a slight nuance, but only in the sense that "walk over to someone" implies walking across a room or some other space, whereas "walk up to someone" implies a more determined intention to face them and probably speak to them.


That is probably a stupid question, but do the same rules apply if I replace _walk_ with _run_?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, it still applies if you use a different verb that indicates *going* from one place to another.


----------

