support from, or for?

[Victor Steinbok]

I would also generally agree, but there is a parsing issue here.

(1) erode [support] from his rival
(2) erode [support for his rival]

In (1), support is surely something that is being eroded, but it's
incidental--anything could be eroded here and fall in the same
construction. What is being eroded here is the rivals' base. And the
votes that they lose presumably go to Perry--i.e., he takes the votes
away /from/ them.

In (2), the preposition goes with "support" rather than with the verb.
The implication is that the enthusiasm and the votes that prop up his
rivals go down, but there is no /direct/ implication that the votes
shift over to Perry--one can erode "support for X" without directly
benefiting from this erosion. The first has the sense of take-away, the
second of destruction (or, more precisely, reduction).

This does not mean that the two constructs can exist side by side, but
it should explain how careless editing might have arrived at the
statement. Whether the construct "erode X from Y" exists at all is an
entirely different question.

VS-)

On 8/10/2011 11:45 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
> In a NYTimes article yesterday on Texas Gov. Rick Perry's signal of
> intent to enter the presidential race, I read:
>
> "His name will not be on the ballot [of the Iowa Straw Poll
> Saturday], but Americans for Perry ... has been urging supporters to
> cast a write-in ballot for him.  That effort could erode support from
> his rivals."
>
> Even in the absence of any activity by Americans for Perry, I would
> not expect that Perry would have had any support from his rivals (and
> in passing, therefore nothing that could erode).  Shouldn't one use
> "erode support *for* his rivals" here?
>
> Joel

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