idiomsword-usage
In my another post (What prepositions could be used to describe the position relevant to water?) I said
"Under" could only be used with "water".
I meant that other prepositions, such as "below, underneath, beneath", could not be used with "water".
Does the quotation clearly convey what I was trying to say?
Is it idiomatic to use that expression?
Well, to address your concern about why we need the source, before you provided the ad, I thought it was a play on words. Pleats almost sounds like beats and music certainly has beats.
However, now that we have the source, we notice that there is sharply dress man (the one who asks "Four pleats?") and the other guy. Instead of telling the other guy that his sense of style is poor, he takes him to car, plays the first track and asks, "How many pleats does this song have?" In other words
How many pleats are these guys wearing?
None. He plays the next song and asks about their pleats. In other words
How many pleats are these people wearing?
The song is "It's a Sunshine Day" performed by The Brady bunch
How many pleats did they wear? (Presumably the men.) Four.
Hence, the sharply dressed man is implying that the other guy's sense of style is out of date. By association, we understand that the car being promoted is cool and sleek, like the sharply dressed man, by today's standards.
By the way, the 4/4 thing is called a time signature.
They are not 'under the water', because you can see them. They are 'in the water' because parts of them are 'under the water'.
Best Answer
No, it does not quite get the meaning you want.
The way you have your sentence means that there is a limitation of the word "under." That is, the only place you could use "under" would be with "water." That is, you are saying you can't use "under penalty of law" or "under duress" or "under budget."
You might try this.
Or possibly this.
However, this statement is not really true. It is quite reasonable to say "beneath water" or "below water."