# come back down the street over



## Gabriel Malheiros

Hi, there

Let's say I am walking down a street to a mall, for example, and I want to tell my friend we should, on our way back, walk down the street "over" the one we were on. Could I use the expression "come back down the street over us"? Does it sound very odd?

Thank you a lot.


----------



## elroy

What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Cagey

I would say, "Let's come [or 'walk'] back on the next street over."

This works in the US, where the streets are on a grid, but it may not work where towns are not laid out so regularly.  
(This topic is discussed here:  block [city block: US vs BE] ) 
​_(Cross-posted) _


----------



## dojibear

Gabriel Malheiros said:


> walk down the street "over" the one we were on.



That expression has no meaning in English. We never say that one street is "over" another street.

But there is an "over from" concept, and the "from" is often omitted.

Example: in a city like New York, with many streets in a rectangle pattern, we may be walking east on 42d street, and I decide I would rather walk east on 43d street instead. So I suggest we walk on the street "one block over" from this one. To get to that street, we have to walk one block north. That is why it is "one block over". The "over" part says how far we need to go to reach the parallel street.

If we are on 42d and I want to walk on 45th (still going east) I will say I want to walk on the street three blocks over. 

Another way of saying one block over (which is the closest parallel street) is "the next street over", as Cagey says. 

In all examples using this phrase, we are talking about parallel streets. But we don't have to be walking. I could say "I thought your apartment was on this street" and you reply "no, it's on the next street over" or "it's on the street three blocks over from this one".


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

elroy said:


> What is that supposed to mean?


I meant this: if there are two streets that are parallel and we are walking to a place down a street and then we want to come back down the street next/parallel to the street we are on now.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> That expression has no meaning in English. We never say that one street is "over" another street.
> 
> But there is an "over from" concept, and the "from" is often omitted.
> 
> Example: in a city like New York, with many streets in a rectangle pattern, we may be walking east on 42d street, and I decide I would rather walk east on 43d street instead. So I suggest we walk on the street "one block over" from this one. To get to that street, we have to walk one block north. That is why it is "one block over". The "over" part says how far we need to go to reach the parallel street.
> 
> If we are on 42d and I want to walk on 45th (still going east) I will say I want to walk on the street three blocks over.
> 
> Another way of saying one block over (which is the closest parallel street) is "the next street over", as Cagey says.
> 
> In all examples using this phrase, we are talking about parallel streets. But we don't have to be walking. I could say "I thought your apartment was on this street" and you reply "no, it's on the next street over" or "it's on the street three blocks over from this one".


But Dojibear, if the streets are parallel, why couldn't I say "let's come back down the street over". You said I can use "over" when they are parallel. Is the problem "down"?


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

Cagey said:


> I would say, "Let's come [or 'walk'] back on the next street over."
> 
> This works in the US, where the streets are on a grid, but it may not work where towns are not laid out so regularly.
> (This topic is discussed here:  block [city block: US vs BE] )
> ​_(Cross-posted) _


What if I am on the 43d street and I want to walk back on the 42d street, should I say "under"?


----------



## elroy

"The street over" is incorrect because a street that is parallel to another street is not "over" that street.  Nor is it "under" it.  These prepositions simply don't have these meanings.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

elroy said:


> "The street over" is incorrect because a street that is parallel to another street is not "over" that street.  Nor is it "under" it.  These prepositions simply don't have these meanings.


But what if I am walking in New York, as Dojibear suggested, could I use "over" with parallel streets? As Cagey said: "walk back on the next street over"


----------



## dojibear

Neither street is "under" or "over". The way you *get* to the other street is to "walk *over *to it".


----------



## Cagey

For me, the word 'next' is essential. 
I would say _'the next street over'_ not_ 'the street over.'_

But maybe I don't understand your question. I am getting confused.


----------



## dojibear

Gabriel Malheiros said:


> But Dojibear, if the streets are parallel, why couldn't I say "let's come back down the street over". You said I can use "over" when they are parallel. Is the problem "down"?



No, I did not "say you can use 'over' when they are parallel". 

I said you could use the standard idiom. "The street over" is not the standard idiom, as Cagey points out:



Cagey said:


> For me, the word 'next' is essential.
> I would say _'the next street over'_ not_ 'the street over.'_



"Over" is part of a phrase saying how far away the parallel street is. Simply "over" does not give a distance, while "a block over" does, and "the next street over" does.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> No, I did not "say you can use 'over' when they are parallel".
> 
> I said you could use the standard idiom. "The street over" is not the standard idiom, as Cagey points out:
> 
> 
> 
> "Over" is part of a phrase saying how far away the parallel street is. Simply "over" does not give a distance, while "a block over" does, and "the next street over" does.





Cagey said:


> For me, the word 'next' is essential.
> I would say _'the next street over'_ not_ 'the street over.'_
> 
> But maybe I don't understand your question. I am getting confused.




If I am in New York, for example, on 45th St, headed to Lexington Ave from 3rd Ave,  like in this map: Dinner Venue | Metro New York Section, AIChE  , and then I want to go back to 3rd Ave by the 44th St or 46th St, what could I say? "Let's come back down the next street over"? "Let's come back by the next street over"? I am confused 

Thank you!


----------



## dojibear

Yes, "Let's walk back taking the next street over" says what you mean.

You can use "by" for "taking" if your meaning is clear. Some of your phrases aren't clear to me, like "come back". To return to our hotel I would say "go back". And "come back down" only makes sense if you just went "up", which nobody did.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> Yes, "Let's walk back taking the next street over" says what you mean.
> 
> You can use "by" for "taking" if your meaning is clear. Some of your phrases aren't clear to me, like "come back". To return to our hotel I would say "go back". And "come back down" only makes sense if you just went "up", which nobody did.


But can I say " next street over" even if I am on 45 and I am going to take 44? And can I say "take" even if I am on foot?  Wouldn't "through or "by" work?

Thank you for all, Dojibear


----------



## dojibear

Gabriel Malheiros said:


> But can I say " next street over" even if I am on 45 and I am going to take 44? And can I say "take" even if I am on foot? Wouldn't "through or "by" work?



Please write actual sentences. It's not always clear what you mean when you just mention one or two words.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> Please write actual sentences. It's not always clear what you mean when you just mention one or two words.


If I am on 45th St and I want to go back by taking 44th St, could I still say "let's go back on the next street over"? Or would it be better to say "let's go back by/through the next street over"? "by 44th St"?
Thank you


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

Cagey said:


> For me, the word 'next' is essential.
> I would say _'the next street over'_ not_ 'the street over.'_
> 
> But maybe I don't understand your question. I am getting confused.


Cagey, and, If I am on 45th St, could I say "Let's go back by the next street over(44 or 46)"?

Isn't "take" only for cars, etc?

Thabk you a lot


----------



## dojibear

You can "take" a car, but (walking or riding) you can also "take" a route. 
"Let's take the next street over, when we walk back."



Gabriel Malheiros said:


> If I am on 45th St and I want to go back by taking 44th St, could I still say "let's go back on the next street over"? Or would it be better to say "let's go back by/through the next street over"? "by 44th St"?



Let's go back on the next street over.
Let's go back by the next street over.
Let's go back through the next street over.
Let's go back by 44th street.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> You can "take" a car, but (walking or riding) you can also "take" a route.
> "Let's take the next street over, when we walk back."
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back on the next street over.
> Let's go back by the next street over.
> Let's go back through the next street over.
> Let's go back by 44th street.


So you can use take a route/road both when you are walking and when you are driving? Dojibear, 
Just some follow-up questions
If I just say "why don't we come back on/by the next street over", how would you tell of I am talking about "44" or "46"? And what's the role of "over" in the sentence?

Finally, would you say "by" or "onl the enxt street over?"?

Thank you very much, Dojibear


----------



## JamesM

"Over" doesn't mean "higher".  It just means "the next one that runs parallel to this one" .  If you are on 43rd, it doesn't tell us whether you mean 42nd or 44th.  Both are possible.  All we know is that you want to walk back on the next adjacent street in the grid on one side or the other.






If I'm walking on Harden Street in the middle of this map, the next street over in one direction is Pine Street.  The next street over in the other direction is Laurens Street.  The next major street over is Barnwell Street in one direction and Highway 1 in the other direction.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

JamesM said:


> "Over" doesn't mean "higher".  It just means "the next one that runs parallel to this one" .  If you are on 43rd, it doesn't tell us whether you mean 42nd or 44th.  Both are possible.  All we know is that you want to walk back on the next adjacent street in the grid on one side or the other.


But I posted a threD in this forum with a sentence "Got parked two streets over?"... Doesn't it mean two streets up?

but would you say "Let's go back/walk back o or by the next street over"?

Thank you very much!


----------



## JamesM

No.  "Over" only tells us a count of streets.  It doesn't give us a direction.

Is Pine Street "up" or "down" from Harden?  Is Laurens Street "up" or "down"?


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

JamesM said:


> No.  "Over" only tells us a count of streets.  It doesn't give us a direction.
> 
> Is Pine Street "up" or "down" from Harden?  Is Laurens Street "up" or "down"?


Ok, but would you use go back/walk back "by" or "on" the next street over, James?


----------



## dojibear

"Two streets over" means "two streets distant" from this one: it is talking about how far apart the parallel streets are.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> "Two streets over" means "two streets distant" from this one: it is talking about how far apart the parallel streets are.


But would you say "Why don't we go back by the next street over" "Why don't we go back on the next street over?"? Which one is idiomatic, Dojibear?

And is there any way of saying "go back on/by the street above/below the one you are on"?

Thank you a lot!!!


----------



## Myridon

Gabriel Malheiros said:


> nd is there any way of saying "go back on/by the street above/below the one you are on"?


Is Maple Street above or below Oak Street?  Your question doesn't have any meaning.  We don't have a special language that only applies to numbered streets.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

Myridon said:


> Is Maple Street above or below Oak Street?  Your question doesn't have any meaning.  We don't have a special language that only applies to numbered streets.



Just two things, Myridon:
But when I was in Boston, I heard one person say : 

"The nearest starbucks is seven blocks *down *_"_.  So what does it mean?

And Myridon, in NY you have streets that go from 29, for example, up to 44,45... In ascending order... Can't I use "up" and "down" or "above/below" to talk about these streets?

Thabk you very, very much.


----------



## Myridon

We have many discussions on the basic meaningless of the directions "up" and "down."  They can mean different things in different cities and in different contexts.  It means "that way - you know what I mean."

In Manhattan, I believe the direction called "down" because it is down river, not because the streets become lower in number. Lower Manhattan is down from 1st Street, ie 1st Street is not literally the 1st Street by about 20 streets. In many cities with numbered streets there are streets in between the numbered streets.  You will hear people in Manhattan say that something is "above 110th Street" but I haven't heard that usage of other cities.


----------



## dojibear

Gabriel Malheiros said:


> when I was in Boston, I heard one person say :
> 
> "The nearest starbucks is seven blocks *down *_"_. So what does it mean?
> 
> And Myridon, in NY you have streets that go from 29, for example, up to 44,45... In ascending order... Can't I use "up" and "down" or "above/below" to talk about these streets?



I've live in Boston and in NY.

"The nearest Starbucks is *seven blocks down*." in Boston means "The nearest starbucks is *seven blocks away along this street*." If you are pointing in a direction (*any* direction) you may say "walk *down *this street until you see a Starbucks." That is a standard expression in English: to walk down a street.

And in NY, with numbered streets, no-one uses "up" or "down" or "above/below" to mean "a higher/lower numbered street". I've never heard it.

There are specific areas (several miles apart) called "uptown" and "downtown" in NY. Sometimes "uptown" and "downtown" are used as directions.

cross-posted


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> I've live in Boston and in NY.
> 
> "The nearest Starbucks is *seven blocks down*." in Boston means "The nearest starbucks is *seven blocks away along this street*." If you are pointing in a direction (*any* direction) you may say "walk *down *this street until you see a Starbucks." That is a standard expression in English: to walk down a street.
> 
> And in NY, with numbered streets, no-one uses "up" or "down" or "above/below" to mean "a higher/lower numbered street". I've never heard it.
> 
> There are specific areas (several miles apart) called "uptown" and "downtown" in NY. Sometimes "uptown" and "downtown" are used as directions.
> 
> cross-posted


I think I got it. Just one thing: can you say "take a stteet" if you are both walking or driving?  But would you say "we should take the next street over" or "we should go back on/by the next street over"? Which one? By or on?
Thank you very much, Dojibear


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

Myridon said:


> We have many discussions on the basic meaningless of the directions "up" and "down."  They can mean different things in different cities and in different contexts.  It means "that way - you know what I mean."
> 
> In Manhattan, I believe the direction called "down" because it is down river, not because the streets become lower in number. Lower Manhattan is down from 1st Street, ie 1st Street is not literally the 1st Street by about 20 streets. In many cities with numbered streets there are streets in between the numbered streets.  You will hear people in Manhattan say that something is "above 110th Street" but I haven't heard that usage of other cities.





JamesM said:


> No.  "Over" only tells us a count of streets.  It doesn't give us a direction.
> 
> Is Pine Street "up" or "down" from Harden?  Is Laurens Street "up" or "down"?






Cagey said:


> For me, the word 'next' is essential.
> I would say _'the next street over'_ not_ 'the street over.'_
> 
> But maybe I don't understand your question. I am getting confused.




Hi, guys

But is it more common to say "take" lr "go by" when you are driving or walking in that case?

"Why don't we go back (on)by the  next street over" or "Why don't we take the next street over on our way back"? Please, tell me what would you say.

Thank you for all


----------



## JamesM

The second one sounds much more natural to me, Gabriel.


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

JamesM said:


> The second one sounds much more natural to me, Gabriel.


Even if you are walking? "Let's take the next street over/Let's take 44 street on our way back"???

But if you use the other one, would you use "go back by" or "go back on"?

Thank you, James


----------



## JamesM

I would use "by", but that sentence construction wouldn't be my first choice in any case.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Just to clarify something you seem to be asking, it is perfectly natural and common to use the word "take" when speaking of using a particular street as a route regardless of whether you are on foot or in a vehicle.  It is also perfectly natural and common to express the same concept in other ways as well (such as "go by".)  English is a flexible language with a large vocabulary, and you can frequently express the same concept in any number of ways, all of which sound normal.

_When I drive to work, I always* take* Grand Boulevard, but when I walk to work, I usually *take *the quiet little street that runs along the park._


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

JamesM said:


> I would use "by", but that sentence construction wouldn't be my first choice in any case.


Don't you usually use "go by a street/route"?


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Just to clarify something you seem to be asking, it is perfectly natural and common to use the word "take" when speaking of using a particular street as a route regardless of whether you are on foot or in a vehicle.  It is also perfectly natural and common to express the same concept in other ways as well (such as "go by".)  English is a flexible language with a large vocabulary, and you can frequently express the same concept in any number of ways, all of which sound normal.
> 
> _When I drive to work, I always* take* Grand Boulevard, but when I walk to work, I usually *take *the quiet little street that runs along the park._


So would you say both "Why don't we take the next street over on our way back" and "Why don't we go back by the next street over"?

And with your sentencs , would you replace "take" with "go by"? "I always go to work by Grand Boulevard"?


----------



## You little ripper!

> "Why don't we go back (on)by the next street over" or "Why don't we take the next street over on our way back"? Please, tell me what would you say.



My favourite mode of transport is my feet and I don't think I've ever used 'take' in this context (not that I think it is wrong). I would say, _Why don't we go down the next street over on our way back?_


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

JamesM said:


> I would use "by", but that sentence construction wouldn't be my first choice in any case.





Myridon said:


> We have many discussions on the basic meaningless of the directions "up" and "down."  They can mean different things in different cities and in different contexts.  It means "that way - you know what I mean."
> 
> In Manhattan, I believe the direction called "down" because it is down river, not because the streets become lower in number. Lower Manhattan is down from 1st Street, ie 1st Street is not literally the 1st Street by about 20 streets. In many cities with numbered streets there are streets in between the numbered streets.  You will hear people in Manhattan say that something is "above 110th Street" but I haven't heard that usage of other cities.




Hi, everyone

I was wondering it it would be possible to say "walk/go back" without any of these prepositions provided that I replace "street" with "way/route"?  "Why don't we go/walk back a different way from the one we came?" .. "Let's walk back a different way(route)... Wouldn't they work?


----------



## Gabriel Malheiros

dojibear said:


> You can "take" a car, but (walking or riding) you can also "take" a route.
> "Let's take the next street over, when we walk back."
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back on the next street over.
> Let's go back by the next street over.
> Let's go back through the next street over.
> Let's go back by 44th street.



Dojibear, wouldn't it work to say "Why don't we walk/go back *down *the street one over from this one"?


----------



## JamesM

_[moderator note:  Gabriel, we are now on the 41st post for this same question.  *We really can't answer every possible variation on a sentence, one variation at a time.  It is not fair to the many other users who have new questions.*

I'm closing this thread.  You have received more than sufficient feedback on your initial question, along with answers to several follow-up questions.]_


----------

