We have lots of alternatives in English, being a bastard language, but we have a full set of Old English prepositions of place in three dimensions - beside, between, before, behind, below, beneath, beyond. Why no “behigh” for above?
Above comes from a-bufan, in which the bu is the same the be in the other preps. Nevertheless. Why did all the others remain in the be-xxx form?
Anyone up on etymology?
Bewildered and befuddled, I do not believe it behooves you to bemoan the lack.
Meaning, 
Sorry, haven’t got the OED on this computer.
I think beyond (the reach) is usually used. “be on high” was once common enough.
Practical answer to students:
“Complex historical reasons.”
If student persists:
“Maybe you can stick around after class, and we’ll research it together.”
Works like a charm.
Trouble is, it was my own curiosity that got me thinking. I could try discouraging myself, but I’m not sure it would work.
I think “to be on high” is different, but don’t quote me on that.
[quote=“ironlady”]“Maybe you can stick around after class, and we’ll research it together.”
Works like a charm.[/quote]
Ironlady, you devil you! 
Think “high above.”
The kite is above the trees.
The kite is high above the trees.
High is an adjective, not preposition. Above is the preposition. If you think about it, high and above do not have the same meanings. Above is place in relation to, such as is below. High is quantitative measure of the above relation. (By the way, this is why I have always been irritated with the terms, high or low price. Doesn’t make sense unless the prices are posted well above, or below, the products.)
Above from abufan says that this word has, essentially, stayed the same. Abufan is perhaps not from the same language group as the other prepositions?
This is very interesting. I get so caught up in this kind of thing myself, so I can understand. Maybe I can find the OED on line? I’ll check that out.
The OED online is by subscription only. I have a cd version, but it’s Windows only. :s
From: etymonline.com/index.php?l=a&p=1
O.E. abufan, from on “on” + bufan “over,” compound of be “by” + ufan “over/high,” from P.Gmc. *ufan-, *uban-. Meaning “in addition” first recorded 1596. Aboveboard (1616) was originally a gambling term, “A figurative expression borrowed from gamesters, who, when they put their hands under the table, are changing their cards.” [Johnson]
That’s the best I can come up with, as OED is not searchable online as far as my quick search can tell.
So, the etymology is not traced farther than Old English. I was hoping for something more in depth. I guess then, if something can be “on high,” then the question why not “be high” is a pretty good one. This is why I want to know more about the word’s ancestery, but I’ve hit the snag.
Above is from a-b-ufan = a-b-ove = on-be-over (an-behigh).
So the preposition for “behigh” using be- is buried within above, with the “a” (on) being added later. Behigh preceded above.
But apparently below was a variation of a-lowe, the opposite of which would be an-high. Alowe preceded below.
Things are going round in circles here. Be-ufan (behigh) preceded above and then got the “a” tagged on. But the opposite, below, was preceded by a-lowe, a version with"a" instead of “be” .
Which came first, an/a or by/be?
[quote=“fruitloop”]Above is from a-b-ufan = a-b-ove = on-be-over (an-behigh).
So the preposition for “behigh” using be- is buried within above, with the “a” (on) being added later. Behigh preceded above.
But apparently below was a variation of a-lowe, the opposite of which would be an-high. Alowe preceded below.
Things are going round in circles here. Be-ufan (behigh) preceded above and then got the “a” tagged on. But the opposite, below, was preceded by a-lowe, a version with"a" instead of “be” .
Which came first, an/a or by/be?[/quote]
Great job, fruitloop, you’re getting closer. I gotta go to bed now, but I’ll maybe see if I can drop by the uni and look into the OED later this week.
By the way, my guess would be that an/a is older, but that is just because it is phonologically more simple. Of course, it may just have been that an/a would have been phonologically awkward, as the /l/ phoneme might have gotten lost between the vowles. That kind of thing is sometimes is the case with modern English spellings of certain words. I gotta sleep.