absorb

hvit · (#1 (**permalink**))

(1) Ted was lost on the new book.
(2) Ted was lost in the new book.
(3) Ted was absorbed on the new book.
(4) Ted was absorbed in the new book.

Hi, are any of the above sentences are natural and OK?

Seiryuu · (#2 (**permalink**))

If you change in -> into in (4), both (2) and (4) will be correct.

Excessum · (#3 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvit

(1) Ted was lost on the new book.
(2) Ted was lost in the new book.
(3) Ted was absorbed on the new book.
(4) Ted was absorbed in the new book.

(2) is ok and (4) could be correct if you changed it like this: Ted was absorbed by the new book.

LadyMoonlight · (#4 (**permalink**))

Never mind.

Katchan6 · (#5 (**permalink**))

i believe its ted
lol
yeah wat everyone else said

Seiryuu · (#6 (**permalink**))

Wait, are we talking about the literal meaning of absorb or the literal meaning?

t3hcur3 · (#7 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvit

(1) Ted was lost on the new book.
(2) Ted was lost in the new book.
(3) Ted was absorbed on the new book.
(4) Ted was absorbed in the new book.

Hi, are any of the above sentences are natural and OK?

(2) sounds good to me, (3) doesn't sound right, ON should be BY, (4) also good, either BY or IN works well there in that sentance. (1) sounds a little bit odd...kind of.

hope that was helpful..