# propping her back with her elbows [prop]



## Ikk

Topic question: Have I used the verb 'prop' correctly in this context?
Copied from original topic. Cagey

'In the picture, the woman is propping her back with her elbows.'

Here is the picture I am talking about:


----------



## lingobingo

I wouldn’t say it like that. You need the phrasal verb “prop up”, e.g. she’s propping herself up on her elbows.


----------



## Ikk

So it is incorrect to say 'In the picture, the woman is propping her back with her elbows.'?


----------



## Myridon

No, her back is not specifically being propped. The upper half of her body is propped up by her arms.


----------



## USMeg

If someone said "propping her back with her elbows" and there was no accompanying picture, I would be unable to imagine what it meant. I would be trying to picture something where the elbows are against the back, which is of course an impossibility. In your image, the woman is propping herself [up] on her elbows.


----------



## lingobingo

No. The verb *prop* (rather than *prop up*) nearly always needs both an object and an adverbial, such as: prop a ladder against a wall, prop the door open with a brick, etc.


----------



## Ikk

lingobingo said:


> No. The verb *prop* (rather than *prop up*) nearly always needs both an object and an adverbial, such as: prop a ladder against a wall, prop the door open with a brick, etc.


Thank you!  How would you describe this picture?



My try: The man is propping himself up on his left arm and feet while his right arm is raised in the air? Is this description correct, or not?


----------



## kentix

No, we wouldn't use prop in that context. Prop is used when you are leaning against something but most of your weight is somewhere else. In the first picture, most of the weight of the woman's body is on her legs and lower area. In the picture above, most of the man's weight is directly on his hand. I would say he's holding himself up with his left arm.

She doesn't have to use a lot of muscle power to maintain that position. He has to use his muscles a lot to stay that way.


----------



## USMeg

I'd call that a _side plank_ and be done with it. But...
_In the absence of an image_, your description would not convey to me what this man is doing.


----------



## lingobingo

A *prop* is something used to shore something else up to make sure it doesn’t collapse or fall over. 

You *prop* something *up* (or against something else) to make sure it doesn’t collapse or fall over. 

Both as a noun and as a verb, the word *prop* can also be used figuratively.


----------



## Ikk

kentix said:


> No, we wouldn't use prop in that context. Prop is used when you are leaning against something but most of your weight is somewhere else. In the first picture, most of the weight of the woman's body is on her legs and lower area. In the picture above, most of the man's weight is directly on his hand. I would say he's holding himself up with his left arm.
> 
> She doesn't have to use a lot of muscle power to maintain that position. He has to use his muscles a lot to stay that way.


Then why is it okay, according to other native speakers, to use prop up to describe woman's position? Guys, you always confuse me.


----------



## Myridon

Ikk said:


> Then why is it okay, according to other native speakers, to use prop up to describe woman's position? Guys, you always confuse me.


Part of the woman's weight is supported by her elbows but most of it is actually supported by her buttocks.


----------



## Ikk

This confuses me even more. All of you give some sort of vague answers without elaborating and I always end up being a lot more confused than I had been before I asked the question on here.


----------



## Myridon

Ikk said:


> This confuses me even more. All of you give some sort of vague answers without elaborating and I always end up being a lot more confused than I had been before I asked the question on here.


"Why?" is generally not a question that is easy to answer for a language.  Native speakers learn things by example - this thing is prop, that thing isn't.  We don't learn by definitions - a prop is thing that does a thing in a certain way.
It might help to go back to the literal meanings.  This stick is a prop.  It props up the box.  It props the box open, but it's not part of the box.  You put the box into that position and the prop helps to keep it there.

The woman's upper arms are like a prop but they aren't really a prop.  She could lift herself into that position without her arms and hold herself like that for a while but her arms are helping to keep her up.
The man on the other couldn't get into that position without his arm.  He's basically standing on one foot and one hand.


----------



## USMeg

Pretty much every English word has subtleties that distinguish it from other words that are close in meaning. Please believe that it is always our goal to increase your clarity of understanding, even when we do not succeed. The native English-speakers here have decades of experiences and examples related to a given word, which have been stored in the brain along with both verbal and non-verbal associations. So the full "concept" of a word can be very hard to convey.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

USMeg said:


> Pretty much every English word has subtleties that distinguish it from other words that are close in meaning. Please believe that it is always our goal to increase your clarity of understanding, even when we do not succeed. The native English-speakers here have decades of experiences and examples related to a given word, which have been stored in the brain along with both verbal and non-verbal associations. So the full "concept" of a word can be very hard to convey.



, and, as I've said elsewhere, this is true of all languages.


----------



## Ikk

USMeg said:


> Pretty much every English word has subtleties that distinguish it from other words that are close in meaning. Please believe that it is always our goal to increase your clarity of understanding, even when we do not succeed. The native English-speakers here have decades of experiences and examples related to a given word, which have been stored in the brain along with both verbal and non-verbal associations. So the full "concept" of a word can be very hard to convey.


I am cognizant of the fact that there subtleties. If I had been oblivious of them, I wouldn't have asked the questions I have asked so far.But then how come there are always some discrepancies between your explanations? And this isn't the first time. For example, some of you said the other day that the sentence 'The police man shot man gratuitously.´was idiomatic but there were native speakers who said that it wasn't. The same with the 'relay or transmit' thread where I asked whether the words relay and transmit were used correctly in this sentence: The washing machine transmits the vibrations to the table and when X placed his hand on the table, the table relayed the vibrations to X's hands. It took one native speaker a while to tell me that although the sentence wasn't idiomatic, it could be said in some technical fields (e.g. engineering).


----------



## abluter

Dear Ikk, there are *always* discrepancies in understandings of words and in their usage. For example, I disagree with kentix (post#8) that "prop" is the wrong term for the man holding himself up with one arm - it seems fine to me. Our understandings of words and phrases are organic, and have much to do with our personal histories and experiences going far back into our earliest childhood. English, and I daresay many other *living* languages, are flexible, adaptable, personal, and of course constantly changing - to expect otherwise is to mistake the nature of language. I emphasize "living" to distinguish modern languages from something like Latin, which is literally set in stone.
To cover all shades of meaning of a term in English, and all the contexts in which it might be used, even if all shades and contexts were known to one person,  would take a treatise for each. This Forum is *admirably suited* to giving serious and earnest students like you a feeling for the complexity and variety of approach of users of the language, and although you might interpret what we offer as absurdly self-contradictory and even adversarial, I think you should treasure it for the insights it has evidently already given you.
End of sermon.


----------



## Ikk

Dear abluter, I am perfectly aware of what you have written above. I am a native Hungarian speaker and a very advanced speaker of German and these two are so called 'living languages' too. (I know I am stating the obvious.) Indeed, languages are flexible and adaptable. And of course, the usage of words depends on the individual. 

But this is what I have been trying to convey: There are always 10-12 native speakers answering my questions, and don't get me wrong, I am very thankful for that as they are kind enough to help me instead of taking care of their own problem. I am really grateful for that. However, they always give short and vague answers and the discrepancies, I mentioned, can confuse a foreigner as he/she doesn't know when to use the word correctly.


----------



## lingobingo

But English is simply not a precise language. Far from it. If you don’t get a precise answer, it’s because there isn’t one. And “bashing” all those contributors to this forum who put so much time and effort into trying to help people understand English, for no reward whatsoever, is unwarranted – to say the least.


----------



## Myridon

Ikk said:


> they always give short and vague answers and the discrepancies


We're giving you much longer answers than you are paying for.   We can't read your mind. We don't know what you don't know already. We don't know what you don't understand when you just say you're confused.
If there's a photo of a naked woman, some people will say it is art and some will say it's pornography.  The fact that they don't agree doesn't mean that either one is wrong, but their life and experiences have molded their views on what "art" means and what "pornography" means differently.


----------



## Ikk

lingobingo said:


> But English is simply not a precise language. Far from it. If you don’t get a precise answer, it’s because there isn’t one. And “bashing” all those contributors to this forum who put so much time and effort into trying to help people understand English, for no reward whatsoever, is unwarranted – to say the least.


I am not bashing anyone. As I said in my previous post, I am grateful.


----------



## Ikk

Myridon said:


> We're giving you much longer answers than you are paying for.   We can't read your mind. We don't know what you don't know already. We don't know what you don't understand when you just say you're confused.
> If there's a photo of a naked woman, some people will say it is art and some will say it's pornography.  The fact that they don't agree doesn't mean that either one is wrong, but their life and experiences have molded their views on what "art" means and what "pornography" means differently.


Then please go back to your post (14) and read the last paragraph where you kind of imply that using 'prop (up)' isn't really correct because both the man and the woman are using their body parts to keep themselves in a particular position.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prop
Then why is the sentence 'She was sitting at the desk with her chin propped on her hands.´ perfectly correct according to that online dictionary?

And I still haven't elicited any answer to these questions: Why is this sentence ''In the picture, the woman is propping her back with her elbows.' incorrect and why is this one 'The man is propping himself up on his left arm and feet while his right arm is raised in the air? ' incorrect too.

I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. But my goal is to achieve native-like fluency in many languages and become a conference interpreter. These are my big goals in life. And I always start panicking when I don't understand something immediately. I always feel depressed when I make a mistake because I associate mistakes with failure. It is not you I am angry at, I am angry at myself. However, the discrepancies between your answers is the source of my confusion. I don't know what's correct and what not and why.


----------



## Tegs

Ikk said:


> Why is this sentence ''In the picture, the woman is propping her back with her elbows.' incorrect



You cannot prop _something with something_. You have to prop something _up_ with something. She is lying on her back and propping herself up with her elbows - that is how I'd describe this. Without mentioning her lying on her back, she could in fact be lying on her front, so it is worth adding this detail. 

You could, I suppose, say that she is propping her _back_ _up_ with her elbows in that this would be understood, but it isn't idiomatic. 



Ikk said:


> why is this one 'The man is propping himself up on his left arm and feet while his right arm is raised in the air? ' incorrect too.



He is holding his entire body weight up with his arm and leg. If you prop something up, you only support the weight, you are not taking the _whole_ weight on that thing. 

Is that any help? Is anything still unclear now?


----------



## lingobingo

This is my take on it all:
​*prop up*  = support, either literally or figuratively​​*PROP*​_[with object and adverbial of place]_ Support or keep in position. (LEXICO)​​The verb *prop* is not normally used with only an object (see definition above). This is why “In the picture, the woman is propping her back with her elbows” is unidiomatic; there’s no adverbial of place, only an adverbial of manner. It’s also why “She was sitting at the desk with her chin propped _on her hands_” is idiomatic(-ish).

“The man is propping himself up on his left arm…” is fine grammatically. (I’ve omitted the rest of the sentence because of the silly-sounding “his left arm and feet”! ) Whether it works to describe the position illustrated in #7 seems to be a matter of personal opinion. I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m no expert on exercises. I would probably have said he was supporting his upper body with his left arm. I wouldn’t use the word *prop* at all.


----------



## Myridon

Ikk said:


> Then please go back to your post (14) and read the last paragraph where you kind of imply that using 'prop (up)' isn't really correct because both the man and the woman are using their body parts to keep themselves in a particular position.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prop
> Then why is the sentence 'She was sitting at the desk with her chin propped on her hands.´ perfectly correct according to that online dictionary?


Please read #14 again. I explained the difference between them.  In this new example, the woman is in a position that she could get into and hold for quite some time without using her arms but it would require effort - she would need to use muscles to hold part of her weight in the air.  By using her arms, the effort is removed - she's resting part of her weight on her arms.  The man would fall immediately without his arm being there and, in fact, he couldn't get into that position without his arm.  We don't say you are propped up by your legs when you are standing and this man is basically standing on one leg and one arm.


----------



## Ikk

lingobingo said:


> This is my take on it all:
> ​*prop up*  = support, either literally or figuratively​​*PROP*​_[with object and adverbial of place]_ Support or keep in position. (LEXICO)​​The verb *prop* is not normally used with only an object (see definition above). This is why “In the picture, the woman is propping her back with her elbows” is unidiomatic; there’s no adverbial of place, only an adverbial of manner. It’s also why “She was sitting at the desk with her chin propped _on her hands_” is idiomatic(-ish).
> 
> “The man is propping himself up on his left arm…” is fine grammatically. (I’ve omitted the rest of the sentence because of the silly-sounding “his left arm and feet”! ) Whether it works to describe the position illustrated in #7 seems to be a matter of personal opinion. I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m no expert on exercises. I would probably have said he was supporting his upper body with his left arm. I wouldn’t use the word *prop* at all.


Here we go again: I thought support is used when we want to say that sth is permanently supported and we use prop when something is temporarily supported.


----------



## Ikk

Myridon said:


> Please read #14 again. I explained the difference between them.  In this new example, the woman is in a position that she could get into and hold for quite some time without using her arms but it would require effort - she would need to use muscles to hold part of her weight in the air.  By using her arms, the effort is removed - she's resting part of her weight on her arms.  The man would fall immediately without his arm being there and, in fact, he couldn't get into that position without his arm.  We don't say you are propped up by your legs when you are standing and this man is basically standing on one leg and one arm.


Yes, he is basically standing but in a horizontal position and not in the usual vertical position.  He couldn't just float in the air. He needs his arm and legs but he isn't standing.


----------



## Myridon

Ikk said:


> Here we again: I thought support is used when we want to say that sth is permanently supported and we use prop when something is temporarily supported.


You are confusing yourself here.  It's clear from your own sentence that "support" can mean "permanently supported" or "temporarily supported."  Your sentence wouldn't make sense otherwise.
("Sth" is a word used by translating and learner's dictionaries.  Native speakers don't use it.)


----------



## Ikk

Myridon said:


> You are confusing yourself here.  It's clear from your own sentence that "support" can mean "permanently supported" or "temporarily supported."  Your sentence wouldn't make sense otherwise.
> ("Sth" is a word used by translating and learner's dictionaries.  Native speakers don't use it.)


But it still isn't clear whether prop and support are interchangeable or not. It's you who are confusing me. You always seem to contradict yourselves.


----------



## Tegs

Ikk said:


> But it still isn't clear whether prop and support are interchangeable or not.


This is a different question now. And I agree with Myridon, your use of support shows you are aware that it can be used for both temporary and permanent scenarios. 


Ikk said:


> It's you who are confusing me. You always seem to contradict yourselves.


Please bear in mind that people will lose interest in helping you if you berate them like this.


----------



## lingobingo

Ikk said:


> Here we go again: I thought support is used when we want to say that sth is permanently supported and we use prop when something is temporarily supported.


I certainly didn’t say that. *Propping* something up is (usually) temporary, yes. But *support* has no time connotation at all. It simply describes the function of that action.


----------



## Ikk

Tegs said:


> This is a different question now. And I agree with Myridon, your use of support shows you are aware that it can be used for both temporary and permanent scenarios.
> 
> Please bear in mind that people will lose interest in helping you if you berate them like this.


I am sorry, I didn't mean that in a negative way, even if that's what you might think.


----------



## Ikk

lingobingo said:


> I certainly didn’t say that. *Propping* something up is (usually) temporary, yes. But *support* has no time connotation at all. It simply describes the function of that action.


And could you elucidate why? I would be very grateful. I know I am a pain in the neck but I really want to understand how to use prop correctly and what the difference between prop and support is.


----------



## kentix

You can support something by propping it up. You can support something more permanently by finding a permanent way to support it. The woman is supporting herself with her elbows (and arms). Those are the "structures" she is using to partially support the weight of her torso. Since it's temporary and her elbows (and arms) aren't supporting most of her weight, the use of prop up is appropriate. She is leaning back on her elbows for support. Having something leaning is usually a part of the reason why prop is used. People in bed prop themselves up on pillows. Anything that is being propped up is being partially supported but not fully supported.

If a tree begins to lean, you can prop it up with a brace.




The situation meets the criteria for the use of prop. The tree is leaning, something is bracing it, but most of the weight is not on the brace. The brace is just assisting.

This is an apple on top of some books.




The books are supporting the entire weight of the apple. The apple is not leaning. The books are not propping up the apple, but they are supporting it.

This tree has a permanent tree support installed. It can't be easily removed. The tree is not leaning. The weight of the tree on the support is minimal. No part of the support is beneath a leaning part of the tree. It's not propping up the tree but it is supporting it to keep it in a vertical position. Nothing you can do for the tree in the first picture will allow it to be in a vertical position. It is leaning and needs propping up.


----------



## Ikk

OK... I think it starts getting clearer. So if something is in a leaning position such as the woman's upper body, or that leaning tree, it is appropriate to use prop (up) but not support. If something is horizontally (such as that man's body in the picture or a bridge held up by cables) or vertically (such as a standing old man who couldn't stand without a cane) positioned, we use support, don't we?


----------



## kentix

Propping up is a form of supporting. But it's only one specific form.


----------



## Myridon

Ikk said:


> Yes, he is basically standing but in a horizontal position and not in the usual vertical position.  He couldn't just float in the air. He needs his arm and legs but he isn't standing.


I said he is *basically *(in essence, for all intents and purpose doing the equivalent of, put simply) standing. He's not merely leaning against his arm in the way that the woman is leaning against her arms. If you took a sword and cut off his arm, his entire weight would fall to the floor. If you cut off the woman's arms, part of her weight might fall to the desk (or she might catch herself) but the majority of her weight is still resting in the chair.


Ikk said:


> OK... I think it starts getting clearer. So if something is in a leaning position such as the woman's upper body, or that leaning tree, it is appropriate to use prop (up) but not support. If something is horizontally (such as that man's body in the picture or a bridge held up by cables) or vertically (such as a standing old man who couldn't stand without a cane) positioned, we use support, don't we?


No, both things involve support.  The woman is supporting her just head, but the man is supporting his entire body equally (in that both are completely necessary) with his arm and his leg.


----------



## JulianStuart

Just to note that _prop_ is typically followed by up at some point in a sentence (there are only a few other uses such as "prop the door open").  I don't go in for nomenclature but this may well be a phrasal verb where the up cannot be omitted.


----------



## Ikk

kentix said:


> Propping up is a form of supporting. But it's only one specific form.


So is my assumption correct or not?


----------



## Ikk

Myridon said:


> I said he is *basically *(in essence, for all intents and purpose doing the equivalent of, put simply) standing. He's not merely leaning against his arm in the way that the woman is leaning against her arms. If you took a sword and cut off his arm, his entire weight would fall to the floor. If you cut off the woman's arms, part of her weight might fall to the desk (or she might catch herself) but the majority of her weight is still resting in the chair.
> 
> No, both things involve support.  The woman is supporting her just head, but the man is supporting his entire body equally (in that both are completely necessary) with his arm and his leg.


So it doesn't depend on whether the person or the object is in a vertical, horizontal or leaning position? 

BTW, I got the idea that both of the words have something to do with support.


----------



## Ikk

I think I got it now! Thank you so much for your help and for being so patient. I didn't berate you when I wrote that you were the ones confusing me. If you misinterpreted that, I am sorry, I really didn't mean it. I appreciate your help because I know that you have more important things to do than helping a foreigner. Yet, you always opt to help me. I am really sorry if I offended you. I was a bit desperate because I didn't understand the differences right away. Every time that happens I tend to panic. Hope you can forgive me.


----------



## Ikk

Ikk said:


> I think I got it now! Thank you so much for your help and for being so patient. I didn't berate you when I wrote that you were the ones confusing me. If you misinterpreted that, I am sorry, I really didn't mean it. I appreciate your help because I know that you have more important things to do than helping a foreigner. Yet, you always opt to help me. I am really sorry if I offended you. I was a bit desperate because I didn't understand the differences right away. Every time that happens I tend to panic. Hope you will accept my apology.


----------



## abluter

Dear Ikk,  thank you for your kind words.  It is our great pleasure to try and help, otherwise we wouldn't do it.
Here are a couple more usages of "to prop" which I don't think have been covered:  you can prop a bicycle against a wall - here of course it's not the bicycle which is propping the wall up, it's the wall that is being used to prop the bicycle up.
And in the last two lines of Edgar Lee Masters's poem "Sexsmith the Dentist" (part of Spoon River Anthology) there is:
"A moral truth is a hollow tooth
Which must be propped with gold."
Of course, we usually speak of a hollow tooth being "filled", but here propped is used to suggest temporary support or remedy.
But note, this is a relatively unusual, almost figurative use of the word.


----------



## Ikk

abluter said:


> Dear Ikk,  thank you for your kind words.  It is our great pleasure to try and help, otherwise we wouldn't do it.
> Here are a couple more usages of "to prop" which I don't think have been covered:  you can prop a bicycle against a wall - here of course it's not the bicycle which is propping the wall up, it's the wall that is being used to prop the bicycle up.
> And in the last two lines of Edgar Lee Masters's poem "Sexsmith the Dentist" (part of Spoon River Anthology) there is:
> "A moral truth is a hollow tooth
> Which must be propped with gold."
> Of course, we usually speak of a hollow tooth being "filled", but here propped is used to suggest temporary support or remedy.
> But note, this is a relatively unusual, almost figurative use of the word.


Thank you!


----------

