"for" = of

[Jonathan Lighter]

Even that sounds kind of weird, possibly because "capital of" is so commonly
heard (and learned early).

JL

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at ix.netcom.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at IX.NETCOM.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "for" = of
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>



--
"There You Go Again...Using Reason on the Planet of the Duck-Billed
Platypus"

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