'for' = 'totaling/covering'?

Brian Hitchcock brianhi at SKECHERS.COM
Thu Sep 8 01:18:26 UTC 2011

In the  Top Story on www.CNN.com  9/7/2011 .


"On Tuesday alone, the Texas Forest Service responded to 19 new fires for
1,490 acres....

In the past seven days Texas Forest Service has responded to 172 fires for
135,051 acres."


Notice the use of 'for'.  I assume the reporter accurately quoted the Forest
Service official, twice, so apparently that is how they say it in Texas. Or
at least in the Texas Forest Service.

Is this sense noted in OED?  The closest I found elsewhere was the sense of
indicating an extent,  as in 'stood in line for an hour' or 'walked for

Perhaps it's more like "the rookie forward sank 17 shots for 38 points."

But somehow, --> xx fires for xxx acres <-- doesn't feel like it's either of
those senses of 'for'.  Am I missing something?

Clearly, using 'for' makes it shorter  to say  --- it just sounds funny (to
me). These sound better (to me):

    xx fires COVERING xxx acres


    xx fires TOTALING xxx acres


    xx fires INVOLVING xxx acres


  xx fires ON xxx acres

But then, I'm not from Texas.  Thoughts, anyone?

The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list