"for" = of

[Alison Murie]

On Dec 10, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "for" = of
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To me, "That's true for all people" is acceptable/standard/whatever
> but
> nevertheless sounds slightly off if the intended meaning is "That's
> true
> *of* all people."  Whichj is what I would say.
>
> Without additional context, "It's certainly true of Ben" (it's one
> of his
> characteristics) means something quite different from "It's
> certainly true
> for Ben" (he thinks it's true even if we think it's nonsense).
> Contextually, "true for" could mean either, but I doubt I would ever
> use it
> to mean the former.  It simply sounds "funny."
>
> But the real novelty here is "What is the capital for Kuwait."
> While contextually comprehensible, it is, to me, bizarre.  I can only
> imagine it in a semi-nonsensical utterance like, "Kuwait needs a
> capital!
> Where can we find a capital for Kuwait?"
>
> If Kuwait did need a capital, I would say something like, "The
> capital of
> Kuwait is an important issue."  Not "The capital for Kuwait..."
>
> OTOH, in that case one could say "A capital for Kuwait is an important
> issue."  That's because _a_ capital would be something *yet to be
> provided*.
> Once provided (_the_ actual capital),  "of" is required.
>
> If you ask me.
>
> JL
>
> The problem is that different functions of "of" are involved.
>
> JL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:33 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
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'm confused about the issue of "true for" here.
>>
>> Isn't this just ordinary English, as in this example:
>>
>> That's true for all people.
>>
>> If you substitute "cases" for "people," then "in" works as well, but
>> what else would you say here?
>>
>> Aloha from Maui
>> Benjamin Barrett
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Jonathan Lighter 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:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:24:32 -0500
>>>>> From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> (on
>>>>> behalf of
>>>> Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>)
>>>>> Subject: Re: "for" = of
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think it sounds weird.  To (or even "for") me, to "be
>>>>> true for"
>>>> means solely "be true in the opinion of," as in New Age-
>>>> Deconstructonist
>>>> contexts like, "The Law of Gravity may be true for you, but it
>>>> isn't true
>>>> for me."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_capitol_for_Kuwait  asks,
>>>>> "What is
>>>> the capitol [sic] for Kuwait?"
>>>>>
>>>>> JL
>>>>>
>>>>>
~~~~~~~~~
To me "true for the people" means what they think; "true of the
people" is what I think.
AM

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