The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

"For, of , with " like detector of the reason. Options
Julya
Posted: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:57:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
These prepositions very often are used for pointing the reasons. Are there any rules or regularity for using them with one or the other reason or can we use them as we want? (no difference of what preposition is standing before the noun pointing the reason?)
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:17:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,556
Neurons: 29,000
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Julya wrote:
These prepositions very often are used for pointing the reasons. Are there any rules or regularity for using them with one or the other reason or can we use them as we want? (no difference of what preposition is standing before the noun pointing the reason?)


There are differences, but I can't think of a simple pattern that would serve as a guide or rule.

In general, reasons for some consequence are introduced with "for", "because", or "due to". (There are probably other ways as well that someone else will be able to add.)

Beyond that, I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about introductory phrases such as "For reasons of clarity", "With this in mind", "The reason for this is that", etc., or something else?

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Julya
Posted: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:36:04 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
leonAzul wrote:
I did not mention any introductory phrases. I just meant the ( preposition + noun)= (the reason of something)

He has made it with a fear. (the reason why he did it was a fear)
She jumped with a joy. (the reason why she jumped was her joy)
I met the "of" and "for" used like "with" .
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:52:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,556
Neurons: 29,000
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Julya wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
I did not mention any introductory phrases. I just meant the ( preposition + noun)= (the reason of something)

He has made it with a fear. (the reason why he did it was a fear)
She jumped with a joy. (the reason why she jumped was her joy)
I met the "of" and "for" used like "with" .


"With" is not the right preposition for these sentences.

"He has done it out of fear" or "He has done it from fear." One would use "make" only if the meaning were that he constructed something.

"She jumped for joy." This last example is so common that it has become somewhat trite.


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
jmacann
Posted: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:18:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/20/2011
Posts: 1,297
Neurons: 3,887
Location: Spain
Sorry, Julya -where did you find "of" and "for" used like "with"? -these are all different.
Julya
Posted: Saturday, October 15, 2011 6:32:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
jmacann wrote:
Sorry, Julya -where did you find "of" and "for" used like "with"? -these are all different.

I did find it in one of the dictionary.
She trembles with fear.
Someone died of fever. ( of any illness)
I know it FROM my own experience.
When must we use "from, with, for, of, due to, because of"? Is any rule for using them in cases like that?
Julya
Posted: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:17:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Julya wrote:
jmacann wrote:
Sorry, Julya -where did you find "of" and "for" used like "with"? -these are all different.

I did find it in one of the dictionary.
She trembles with fear.(because of fear)
Someone died of fever. (because of fever) ( of any illness)
I know it FROM my own experience. (because of my experience)
He went to the shop for bread. (because of bread)
When must we use "from, with, for, of, due to, because of"? Is any rule for using them in cases like that?
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, October 28, 2011 8:03:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,556
Neurons: 29,000
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Julya wrote:
Julya wrote:
jmacann wrote:
Sorry, Julya -where did you find "of" and "for" used like "with"? -these are all different.

I did find it in one of the dictionary.
She trembles with fear.(because of fear)
Someone died of fever. (because of fever) ( of any illness)
I know it FROM my own experience. (because of my experience)
He went to the shop for bread. (because of bread)
When must we use "from, with, for, of, due to, because of"? Is any rule for using them in cases like that?


I'll return later, but I think I see where I misunderstood your original question: You were using "made it" and "do it" as placeholders for different verbs, not literally. Because both "do" and "make" themselves have idiomatic meanings in this construction, there is no way to clearly express a general question like that in English without examples to illustrate the pattern you are interested in.

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Hope1
Posted: Friday, October 28, 2011 9:13:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352
I am not sure but I think I understand your dilemma.

These words are all prepositions with many different meanings. ('For' can also be a conjunction.) They do NOT all mean 'because' as you suggested.

'Of' had 21 different meanings listed in the dictionary. Three meanings are 'derived from, caused by, away from'. 'With' had 27 meanings including 'in the company of and next to' etc. 'For' listed 'destination or aim' as meanings. 'From' can be used as coming from a starting point or a source. I only indicated a couple of meanings for each.

Then there are all the idioms.

'Because of' means 'on account of' and 'due to' has a discussion in the dictionary about the finer points of its usage that are mostly ignored nowadays.

Knowing which one to choose is very hard when learning a new language. All I can suggest is to look in the dictionary for each word and see how it is used. Then keep on practising as you are.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Of

Type in each word and try to compare it with the others. This may seem like a monumental task. No, you can not use them interchangeably all the time.

I hope this helps. I did my best trying to type this on my iPAD2. I apologize in advance for any errors in my posting. I wish I could sit down with you to explain.


Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Julya
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 10:36:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Hope1 wrote:

You didn't understand me and what i meant./. I don't ask about all meanings ( about 20-30) of these words ..and i don't say all these prepositions mean the same (because of) I would like to know when we must use "with" or " for" or "from" or "of", wishing to point this or that reason. He did it (why?) with fear. (why not "of")?
She trembles (why?) with fear.(because of fear)
Someone died (why?) of fever. (because of fever) ( of any illness)
I know it (why do you know it?) FROM my own experience. (because of my experience)
He went to the shop (why?) for bread. (because of bread, because he needs bread)
When must we use "from, with, for, of, due to, because of"? Is any rule for using them in cases like that?
Hope1
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:18:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352
Sorry. I think I did understand but you did not understand me. I will try one more time.

We might say 'he did it with fear in his heart' or 'he did it out of fear' but the meaning of 'of' just does not fit. There are other preps that might fit here too - I do not have time to write more.

And sometimes when a word might fit, it just is not used.

English is not necessarily a logical language. I was trying to tell you there is no specific rule for when to use a certain preposition. You just have to learn the usages and therefore the meanings would help.

At least I do not know of any rules? That would make it too easy. :-) Leon???

(I struggled with this very problem when trying to learn Spanish. I never will be fluent enough to use all the correct prepositions when even a different preposition can change the whole meaning of the verb. Especially since there was no one with whom to practise. )



Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Julya
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:37:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Hope1 wrote:


Thank you for answer though you couldn't help me with this question(((
Hope1
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:59:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352

Julya, here is an excerpt from a website I got when I googled English Language Forums. It explains your problem. You asked if there were rules as to when to use which preposition. As I said before "There are NO rules! " See below!
There are exercises to help on this website. It will probably have the prepositions about which you specifically asked.
I will go back and get the URL for you in a minute.


GRAMMAR

Phrasal verbs

What are phrasal verbs?

Phrasal verbs are mainly used in spoken English and informal texts. (The more formal a conversation or text, the less phrasal verbs are found.)
Phrasal verbs consist of a verb and a particle (preposition, adverb). The particle can change the meaning of the verb completely. For example::

look up – consult a reference book (look a word up in a dictionary)
look for – seek (look for her ring)
look forward – anticipate with pleasure (look forward to meeting someone)

There are no rules that might explain the meaning of phrasal verbs. All you can do is look them up in a good dictionary and study their meanings.

Position of the Particle:

In some cases the particle is placed either after the verb or after the object.

Example:

Write down the word
Write the word down
If the object is a pronoun, however, the particle has to be placed after the pronoun (object).

Example:

Write it down.
Your photo album. Put it down
Your jacket. Take it off
Frequently used phrasal verbs:

This is a list of phrasal verbs and their meaning arranged in alphabetical order:

A list of phrasal verbs in alphabetical order
myenglishpages.com
Exercises on phrasal verbs



Grammar lessons.
Vocabulary lessons.
Speaking lessons.
Writing lessons.
Reading materials.
Listening materials.
Exercises and tests.




Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Julya
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:21:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Hope1 wrote:



You hint to me that i ask about phrasal verbs pointing the reason? Namely,
tremble with
died of
know FROM
went for
I must take it as due? Without any questions?
Hope1
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:47:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352
Yes.

You may see a correlation in your examples, that they seem to be grouped somehow according to the reason they are used (i.e.the meaning) and maybe there are rules in Russian, (I have no idea about that).
But in English we had to learn when to use them all without rules, a few at a time.

Here is the website. There are exercises to help you.

http://www.myenglishpages.com/forum/forum_files/forum_index.php

Good luck.

Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:24:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,615
Neurons: 200,259
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I do not have any definitive answers - but I think there are some patterns I can see which may help. These are what these phrases mean to me - others may well have other opinions which are just as correct!

I think I (and most people in common speech) would use 'with' and 'for' interchangeably - but 'for joy' and 'with surprise' are most usual. The meanings are very similar but have a 'shade' - a slight implied difference - to me.
Jump with joy - To jump {while having and expressing} joy
jump for joy - To jump {because of} joy
She screamed with surprise - she screamed {expressing} surprise
She screamed for surprise at seeing him - she screamed {because of} surprise...
Ran for fear of arrest - Ran {because of} {fear of arrest}
Ran with fear of arrest - Ran {while having} {fear of arrest}
Ran due to fear - Ran {because of} fear
ran because of fear - Ran {because of} fear
Trembles with fear of the dark - trembles {expressing} {fear of the dark}
trembles for fear of the dark - trembles {because of} {fear of the dark}
It appears to me that 'for', meaning 'because of' or 'caused by' is only used when the cause is an emotion or feeling - if the cause is even slightly more concrete and physical ('the dark' or 'a fever' or 'an illness') one would use 'of'.

died of fever or died from fever or died due to fever - died {caused by} fever
these seem to me to be randomly interchangeable (sorry, I see no difference or pattern).
He was sick with fever - he was sick {and had} fever
He was sick of fever - this is an idiom meaning "He was {annoyed by continuing to have} fever

I know it from my own experience or I know it out of experience - I know it {because I can take it}(omitted but understood) {from/out of} {my experience}
'From experience' and 'out of experience' are virtually idioms now

went to the shop for bread - {went to the shop} {for the purpose of getting} bread
went to the shop for lack of bread - {went to the shop} {because of} {the feeling of lacking bread}.

I have been working this out as I typed and formatted this, so please excuse any errors.
The nearest thing I could find to a rule is the 'of/for' note in bold.

Edit: I see Hope1 posted a message while I was composing this. I do not think it alters anything I have said.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Julya
Posted: Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:29:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

The nearest thing I could find to a rule is the 'of/for' note in bold.

Hi, DragOn, thank you a lot for your answer. I didn't discern any errors. what did you mean writing "The nearest thing I could find to a rule is the 'of/for' note in bold."
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:08:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,615
Neurons: 200,259
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Julya wrote:
What did you mean writing "The nearest thing I could find to a rule is the 'of/for' note in bold."

I meant I could not find any 'official' or written rules; however, by looking at all the examples, the following looks true:
It appears to me that 'for', meaning 'because of' or 'caused by' is only used when the cause is an emotion or feeling - if the cause is even slightly more concrete and physical ('the dark' or 'a fever' or 'an illness') one would use 'of'. (this was the note in bold.)

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Julya
Posted: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:45:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
)
No, this your thought i understood at once. i mean another one. What was the note in bold ? Sorry for not uderstanding...Oh< i see what you meant now. Sorry.
Hope1
Posted: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:58:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352
Julya,

I googled 'of' and 'for'' together. There were several hits and this is one of them. I have copied an excerpt and will return with the website in a minute.

Maybe if you do the same with other pairs of words you will get the help you need for all of them.

This website explains subtle differences in the usages of these two words but only used one or two of the meanings of each of them. It shows meanings, makes comparisons, and shows patterns, but does not give any specific rules. However, I think it should help you a lot.

The last cute quote by a student explains it perfectly!

Website -

How do you use 'of' and 'for'? (of vs for)


Monday, 18 January 2010 13:44
Written by Neal Chambers
Mr.Maru: Are you ready for dinner?
Sparky: Yes, I am. What are we eating tonight?
Mr.Maru: I'm making your favorite. A big bowl of bacon.
Sparky: I love bacon! When will it be ready?
Mr.Maru: In about 20 minutes.
Sparky: Well, hurry. I'm almost dying for hunger.
Mr.Maru: You are what?
Sparky: Dying for hunger. I'm really hungry.
Mr.Maru: You mean dying OF hunger, I think. Nobody wants to die for hunger.
Sparky: I see. Why not?
Mr.Maru: Because it doesn't make any sense. Nobody wants to die for the purpose of hunger.
 
How do you use of and for? These prepositions sometimes have similar meanings and can sometimes both be used in the same sentence. There are some big differences between the two though. Let's talk about some examples.

How to use the preposition 'for'

The preposition 'for' can be used for many things – time, distance, and purpose. Today we are talking about using the preposition 'for' for a purpose because this meaning is sometimes similar to 'of'. We can see the use of 'for' being used for purpose in the following sentences:
I went to the bar for a drink. (I went to the bar for the purpose of a drink. I wanted to buy the drink.)
I wear a suit for work. (I wear a suit for the purpose of work. I intended to wear a suit because work wants me to.)
The word after 'for' is always a noun. The following sentence is incorrect:
I went to the bar for to drink beer. OR I went to the bar for drink beer.
You can also use the preposition 'for' to explain the purpose of objects. For example,
This is the fork for eating salad and this is the fork for eating dessert.
An oven is used for baking the cookies.

How to use the preposition 'of'

The preposition 'of' can be used for more things – direction or distance, origin, cause, material, identity, connection, inclusion, and relation. Today we are talking about using it for cause and connection. We can see the use of 'of' being used for cause in the follow sentences:
He died of hunger. (The reason or cause of why he died was because of hunger.)
He shivered of fear. (The reason or cause of why he shivered was because of fear.)
We can also use 'of' for connection:
This desk is the property of the school. (This desk is property that is connected to the school.)
Barack Obama is the president of the United States. (Barack Obama is a president that is connected to the United States.)

of vs for

These prepositions can sometimes both be used in the same sentence, but they have different meanings. For example,
This is the procedure for starting the super computer. (This procedure was created with the purpose of starting the super computer.)
This is the procedure of starting the super computer. (This procedure is connected to starting the super computer.)
The difference is very small, but there is a small difference. The preposition 'of' is more general than the preposition 'for'. Here is another one:
He died for his country. (He died for the purpose of his country. He intended to die to protect his country.)
He died of heart failure. (The reason he died was his heart stopped. In other words it failed.)
You can not say either of the following:
He died of his country OR He died for heart failure.
Do you think you understand? Let's take short 'of' vs 'for' quiz!
 
1) He helped pass out food ___ the poor on Christmas Eve.
A) for
B) of
 
2) Britney danced ____ the audience.
A) for
B) of
 
3) My uncle died ____ overeating.
A) for
B) of
 
Answers
1) A) – The food is for the purpose of feeding the poor.
2) A) – Britney danced for the purpose of entertaining the audience.
3) B) – My uncle ate too much so he died. It was the cause of his death.
 
Thanks for stopping by. Can you make sentences with 'of' or 'for'? Try to make some sentences in the comments below. If you have a stumper, please email us at englishspark@yahoo.com
retweet
0
Last Updated on Monday, 13 September 2010 15:15
 
Comments  

 

0 #2 RE: How do you use 'of' and 'for'? (of vs for) — Behailu 2011-09-20 15:04
This website is wonderfull for learning English. One of the reasons is it gives briff explanation for each topic.
Quote
 
 

+4 #1 Chocolate cake — Anne Hodgson 2010-01-21 13:09
I die for chocolate cake. But I'd have to eat a lot of it before I died of cake.
Quote
 


Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Hope1
Posted: Sunday, October 30, 2011 10:10:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352
The web is a marvelous place to go for help.

Here is the one website I quoted in the previous posting.

http://www.englishspark.com/en/students/434-of-vs-for

Let me know how you make out.

Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Julya
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:07:12 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Hope1 wrote:



Thank you !I will certainly look at this site. I have caught a difference between the reason as result of action of something (of) and the reason as the purpose (for).
Hope1 wrote:

This website explains subtle differences in the usages of these two words but only used one or two of the meanings of each of them.
but only used one or two of the meanings of each of them
Is any difference between " but onlly" and " not only"? What do you mean? You meant the word "using" not the "used"? Explain it to me,please.
f.e. Welcome to Siberia! But only don't forget to take warm clothes with yourself ! (you wouldn't say "not only" in this case?)
Or, I knew what you thought "but only" did. (or "not only"?) What is correct? Or maybe all is OK?
Hope1
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:50:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,163
Neurons: 3,352
"But it used (past tense) only one...... '" I put the only before the verb because I wanted to emphasize that it mentioned that there were a lot more meanings for both words and they compared only one or two meanings there. The 'it' ( subject) was understood in my construction.

'But' contrasts. 'Not' is a negative. I do not have time to check this in the dictionary for a longer explanation, so see if you can find it on your own.

In your 'Siberia' sentence you do not really need the word ' but' as you are not comparing. Also, use ' with you' not 'yourself'. You definitely would not use 'not only' in this sentence. In your second example, you would have to finish the sentence so there is more context.

Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
Julya
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:19:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
He was handsome but only stupid.
He was handsome not only smart.
I knew not only what he did but he thought.
++++++++++
Is this time enough context to know these sentences are correct or wrong?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:37:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,615
Neurons: 200,259
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
He was handsome but only stupid. This is a correct sentence, and means to me that he was handsome, but he was not intelligent, he was only stupid.

He was handsome not only smart. This is also correct - he was both handsome and smart!

I knew not only what he did but he thought. I understand this, but it should be "I knew not only what he did but what he thought." - meaning I knew what he did and I knew what he thought.

Edit: I am not certain of my punctuation, but I think there should be commas in those sentences:
He was handsome, but only stupid.
He was handsome, not only smart.
I knew not only what he did, but what he thought.

Perhaps Hope 1 can correct me on that.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Julya
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:42:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Hi! Thank you my assistant! And for editing too.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:28:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,015
Neurons: 56,229
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
He was handsome but only stupid. This is a correct sentence, and means to me that he was handsome, but he was not intelligent, he was only stupid.

He was handsome not only smart. This is also correct - he was both handsome and smart!

I knew not only what he did but he thought. I understand this, but it should be "I knew not only what he did but what he thought." - meaning I knew what he did and I knew what he thought.

Edit: I am not certain of my punctuation, but I think there should be commas in those sentences:
He was handsome, but only stupid.
He was handsome, not only smart.
I knew not only what he did, but what he thought.

Perhaps Hope 1 can correct me on that.



I don't want to offend, but I believe your sentences need to be tweaked a bit.

He was handsome, but only stupid.
This would make sense if you said, "He was handsome, but only because of his clothing." The "only" signifying something that is singled out as a reason. Otherwise, I think it should read,"He was handsome, but stupid."
Of course, you could also say, "He was handsome, but only because he was stupid." While the sentence makes sense, the reasoning behind it doesn't.

He was handsome, not only smart.
Here, the "not only" is a word combination that is used with "but also". In fact, I can't think of any usage that would use one without the other. Therefore, the sentence should read:
He was not only handsome, but also smart.

I knew not only what he did, but what he thought.
Here is that same problem. It should read:
I knew not only what he did, but also what he thought.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:21:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,615
Neurons: 200,259
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
I don't want to offend, but I believe your sentences need to be tweaked a bit.

I'm not offended, but I only disagree (mostly):

He was handsome, but only stupid.This would make sense if you said, "He was handsome, but only because of his clothing." The "only" signifying something that is singled out as a reason. Otherwise, I think it should read, "He was handsome, but stupid."

ONLY adv
...
2.
merely or just it's only Henry
MERELY adv
only; nothing more than; not more than

He was handsome, but only stupid.
He was handsome, but merely stupid.
He was handsome, but not more than stupid.
"He was handsome, but stupid." is fine, but the 'only' stresses the stupidity, that's all.
I'm not offended, but I only disagree.
I'm not offended, but I merely disagree.

FounDit also wrote:
He was handsome, not only smart.
Here, the "not only" is a word combination that is used with "but also". In fact, I can't think of any usage that would use one without the other. Therefore, the sentence should read:...


'Not only' is a word combination which can be, and often is, used with 'but also' (as I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread).
"He was handsome, not only smart." is perfectly good grammar, and makes sense; similarly for "I knew not only what he did, but what he thought."

Possibly these are constructions which you have not seen, but they are correct English grammar and communicate the concept exactly.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 10:56:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,015
Neurons: 56,229
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


Possibly these are constructions which you have not seen, but they are correct English grammar and communicate the concept exactly.



You are correct. I have not seen these constructions, and they sound wrong to my ear. Perhaps it is an AE thing. That, or I'm just too old fashioned...Anxious




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 11:25:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,615
Neurons: 200,259
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Ah, now, FounDit we seem to have total agreement! Dancing

I don't know if it's an AE thing, or the fact that I don't speak 'proper English' (God Forbid!). There used to be a form of English we called 'BBC English', which only BBC radio announcers spoke. This was considered by 'all the best people' to be correct and everything else was wrong. Luckily this died out (even on the BBC) around 1970.

The sentences I gave were correct grammar, but could well be re-phrased to sound 'better' - I like the 'He was handsome, but stupid'.
The sentence pattern with 'only' is correct, following the style:
(consider two 18-year-old girls discussing a good-looking 12-year-old, who is 5 feet tall and has an IQ of 80)
He's handsome, but only young. He's handsome, but only very short. He's handsome, but only stupid.
It may well not be very good 'style'.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Julya
Posted: Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:45:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
Hope1 wrote:

I have caught a difference between the reason as result of action of something (of) and the reason as the purpose (for). And thanks to supervision of DraagOnspeeker, as to "for"," It appears to me that 'for', meaning 'because of' or 'caused by' is only used when the cause is an emotion or feeling - if the cause is even slightly more concrete and physical ('the dark' or 'a fever' or 'an illness') one would use 'of'. " the using of the "for" at pointing of reason even more wider than this site explains.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, November 7, 2011 4:27:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,556
Neurons: 29,000
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Julya wrote:

I did find it in one of the dictionary.
She trembles with fear.(because of fear)


One problem is that this is a poor definition. A better equivalent would be "She trembles fearfully", meaning her trembling expresses fear. Although in many cases the reason for expressing fear is that she is experiencing fear, there is a subtle difference between that and the case where her trembling is directly caused by fear.

Again, there is no strict rule for this, and there are many idiomatic exceptions, yet this general pattern could be illustrated with the verb, "to sing".

She sings from joy; her singing is caused by the joy that she feels.
She sings with joy; her singing is joyful; her singing expresses the feeling of joy.
She sings of joy; her singing is about the feeling of joy.
She sings for joy; her singing is caused by joy, or for the sake of causing joy.

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Julya
Posted: Monday, November 7, 2011 5:12:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 925
Neurons: 1,988
leonAzul wrote:


She sings from joy; her singing is caused by the joy that she feels.
She sings with joy; her singing is joyful; her singing expresses the feeling of joy.
She sings of joy; her singing is about the feeling of joy.
She sings for joy; her singing is caused by joy, or for the sake of causing joy.

========================
He trembles from fear.
he is trembling for fear. (because of)
He is trembling of fear. or He is trembling of terrible story?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.