"for" = of

[Benjamin Barrett]

It seems that anyone faced with a list of countries whose capitals
must be filled in would readily use "for."

"Let's see. I got Jordan. What's the capital for Kuwait?"

FWIW, my guess is that this is topicalization based on Japanese.

Aloha from Maui
Benjamin Barrett

On Dec 11, 2009, at 4:45 AM, Charles Doyle wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Charles Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: "for" = of
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> Yeah, but are Mark's and Jonathan's lucid and elegant explanations
> OF or FOR the distinction?
>
> (Thus, we can imagine a student in a geography class, taking a
> test, who gives the wrong "capital for Kuwait.")
>
> --Charlie
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:01:14 -0500
>> From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> (on behalf
>> of Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>)>
>> I think Mark's got it.
>>
>> A possible explanation for [n.b.] the mathematical usage is that
>> in the cases cited, the value(s) linked to "for" may be/ are to
>> be/ can be *supplied* or *provided*.  They are not (necessarily)
>> already in existence, as is the "capital of Kuwait."
>>
>> JL
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>> -----------------------
>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>> Poster:       Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
>>> Subject:      Re: "for" = of
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------
>>>
>>> I disagree (about something screwy happening -- not about *"the
>>> capit{o,a}l
>>> for Kuwait". Consider "*n + 1 > n*  is true for all values of *n*."
>>>
>>> This is not something that is true *of* *n*, in the way that "*n*
>>> is even"
>>> is true of 12 but is not true of 17. In fact, I'm a bit
>>> uncomfortable even
>>> formulating those statements thus; the English usage seems to
>>> assume what
>>> the mathematical notation makes explicit by expressing the number
>>> with the
>>> placeholder *n*.
>>>
>>> My own version of that is "*There's a filk* in there somewhere*
>>> is true for
>>> all values of *there*" -- i.e., it's possible to write a more-or-
>>> less
>>> sf-fannish song on that subject or about that person or to the
>>> tune of that
>>> song or incorporating the quip someone just made or...
>>>
>>> I think I will assert that "S(x) is true for all (some,
>>> specified) values
>>> of
>>> x" is mathematical dialect of art, and declare it settled. :-)
>>>
>>> m a m
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Jonathan Lighter
>>> <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then something screwy is happening in the distribution of "for."
>>>>
>>>> Not even a mathematician would write, "What is the capitol for
>>>> Kuwait?"
>>>> JL
>>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Charles Doyle <cdoyle at uga.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>>> Poster:       Charles Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
>>>>> Subject:      Re: "for" = of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------
>>>>>
>>>>> Dipping almost randomly into early-20th-century mathematical and
>>>>> philosophical journals, I find an abundance of such phrasing as
>>>>> "true
>>> for
>>>>> all values of the variable."
>>>>>
>>>>> --Charlie
>>>>>
>>>>

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