|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
 Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
 |
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
One use of the preposition with is to indicate that the prepositional complement was used as the instrument by means of which the action specified by the verb was carried out.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water.
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. |
Using your own definition, use of 'with' in (4) becomes a bit odd. Just replace 'with' with 'by means of':
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa by means of his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach by means of Sujin's car.
...but...
(4) Lisa filled the pot by means of water?? |
I think in this context we can safely assume that "by means of" is synonymous with "through the use of," or, more succinctly, "using." The sentence, "Lisa filled the pot using water," sounds unodd to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
While the meaning remains the same, those examples do sound odd.
Who would ever say, "Lisa filled the pot by means of water?"
It sounds ridiculous.
But excrementaly speaking, and in the words of Tommy Chong,
"We must humus him". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:56 am Post subject: Re: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
One use of the preposition with is to indicate that the prepositional complement was used as the instrument by means of which the action specified by the verb was carried out.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water.
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. |
Using your own definition, use of 'with' in (4) becomes a bit odd. Just replace 'with' with 'by means of':
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa by means of his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach by means of Sujin's car.
...but...
(4) Lisa filled the pot by means of water?? |
I think in this context we can safely assume that "by means of" is synonymous with "through the use of," or, more succinctly, "using." The sentence, "Lisa filled the pot using water," sounds unodd to me. |
I agree.
In fact it could even be used with "by means of". I feel that it's dependent on the context. I'm not sure but I think that it emphasizes the method or instrument used for the action, particularly if it was creative. It does sound odd in "Lisa filled the pot by means of water" but that might be because water is regularly used for filling pots and doesn't require extra emphasis. If the water was a more creative solution then it might sound better.
The city had shut off the water to her neighborhood but Lisa really wanted to cook some ramen. She searched for another source of water. Lisa filled the pot by means of water from a rain barrel.
Still, "using" sounds natural. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
|
|
| Troglodyte wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
One use of the preposition with is to indicate that the prepositional complement was used as the instrument by means of which the action specified by the verb was carried out.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water.
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. |
Using your own definition, use of 'with' in (4) becomes a bit odd. Just replace 'with' with 'by means of':
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa by means of his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach by means of Sujin's car.
...but...
(4) Lisa filled the pot by means of water?? |
I think in this context we can safely assume that "by means of" is synonymous with "through the use of," or, more succinctly, "using." The sentence, "Lisa filled the pot using water," sounds unodd to me. |
I agree.
In fact it could even be used with "by means of". I feel that it's dependent on the context. I'm not sure but I think that it emphasizes the method or instrument used for the action, particularly if it was creative. It does sound odd in "Lisa filled the pot by means of water" but that might be because water is regularly used for filling pots and doesn't require extra emphasis. If the water was a more creative solution then it might sound better.
The city had shut off the water to her neighborhood but Lisa really wanted to cook some ramen. She searched for another source of water. Lisa filled the pot by means of water from a rain barrel.
Still, "using" sounds natural. |
hmm...
While I don't want to make this matter more complicated than it already has been, I would just like to point out that the examples being used here...are not using the same meaning for 'with'
'with' has more than one meaning...I know...I know...you all already know that.
I am just wondering why you are comparing apples and oranges...yes they are both fruit...but different...not same same.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water. (material being put into something)
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm. (instrument - intangible asset)
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. (instrument - tangible asset)
While 5&6 can be said to use the same 'with'....4 can not.
That is why
Lisa filled the pot by mean of water. (does not only sound wrong...it is wrong.)
Eg.
They filled the hole with shovels. - has two distinct meanings.
A)They filled the hole by means of shovels. (The used the shovels to put dirt into the whole until is was full.)
B)They put shovels in the hole. (The hole was full of shovels)
Anyway...I know you know this...as it has already been mentioned earlier in the thread...just saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: Re: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Troglodyte wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
One use of the preposition with is to indicate that the prepositional complement was used as the instrument by means of which the action specified by the verb was carried out.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water.
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. |
Using your own definition, use of 'with' in (4) becomes a bit odd. Just replace 'with' with 'by means of':
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa by means of his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach by means of Sujin's car.
...but...
(4) Lisa filled the pot by means of water?? |
I think in this context we can safely assume that "by means of" is synonymous with "through the use of," or, more succinctly, "using." The sentence, "Lisa filled the pot using water," sounds unodd to me. |
I agree.
In fact it could even be used with "by means of". I feel that it's dependent on the context. I'm not sure but I think that it emphasizes the method or instrument used for the action, particularly if it was creative. It does sound odd in "Lisa filled the pot by means of water" but that might be because water is regularly used for filling pots and doesn't require extra emphasis. If the water was a more creative solution then it might sound better.
The city had shut off the water to her neighborhood but Lisa really wanted to cook some ramen. She searched for another source of water. Lisa filled the pot by means of water from a rain barrel.
Still, "using" sounds natural. |
hmm...
While I don't want to make this matter more complicated than it already has been, I would just like to point out that the examples being used here...are not using the same meaning for 'with'
'with' has more than one meaning...I know...I know...you all already know that.
I am just wondering why you are comparing apples and oranges...yes they are both fruit...but different...not same same.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water. (material being put into something)
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm. (instrument - intangible asset)
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. (instrument - tangible asset)
While 5&6 can be said to use the same 'with'....4 can not.
That is why
Lisa filled the pot by mean of water. (does not only sound wrong...it is wrong.)
Eg.
They filled the hole with shovels. - has two distinct meanings.
A)They filled the hole by means of shovels. (The used the shovels to put dirt into the whole until is was full.)
B)They put shovels in the hole. (The hole was full of shovels)
Anyway...I know you know this...as it has already been mentioned earlier in the thread...just saying. |
How = by what means, or in what manner.
(1) How did Lisa fill the pot? Using water/By putting the pot under the faucet.
(2) How did Jun-ho dazzle Lisa? Using his charm/By charming her.
(3) How did they drive to the beach? Using Sujin's car/Very slowly.
(4) How did they fill the hole? Using shovels/By putting shovels into the hole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Technically most of the examples in this thread COULD be correct. The problem is that they are all out of context. Without the context it can be hard to say which is correct and which is not.
"They filled the pit of shovels."
Is it correct? In most cases, no, but we don't know the context. Maybe it was a garbage pit specifically for old broken shovels and some guys dumped soil into the pit and covered it over with grass. In that extremely odd but totally possible context, the sentence is correct. On the other hand if it was a regular pit in the ground and the guys used shovels to move dirt into it then the sentence is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troglodyte wrote: |
Technically most of the examples in this thread COULD be correct. The problem is that they are all out of context. Without the context it can be hard to say which is correct and which is not.
"They filled the pit of shovels."
Is it correct? In most cases, no, but we don't know the context. Maybe it was a garbage pit specifically for old broken shovels and some guys dumped soil into the pit and covered it over with grass. In that extremely odd but totally possible context, the sentence is correct. On the other hand if it was a regular pit in the ground and the guys used shovels to move dirt into it then the sentence is wrong. |
You're ok Troglodyte. A jerk at times, but I reckon you're ok. I'm typing amazingly coherently given that I'm under the influence. Peace out.
Keep throwing the problems out there people, and feel free to post topics on any matter imaginable in the off topic forum. I love out there stuff. I should be in bed. Nite all*
EDIT:
| Quote: |
A student saw me write, "Fill a pot with water" which sounds more natural to me. They didn't understand why I used "with". Any ideas how to explain "with"?
I see "fill a pot of water" being used, but it just sounds funny to me. Is this just flat out wrong or is it a regional thing? |
I woke up today feeling fresher and I couldn't help but get back to this. I really need to stop posting but as Troglodyte said, there isn't enough context provided the OP. We can however work on probabilistic context.
"fill a pot of water" is acceptable given the following premise:
There is already water in the pot hence it's a pot of water (prep., possessive)
So, if I fill a pot of water, I ought to be adding water to a pot that already has water in it.
However, I think it's likely that the pot was empty beforehand.
I say this because of the OP's choice of using the word 'with'.
We don't fill a pot with water if there is already water in it. Yeah, it's possible but generally speaking, when someone says they are going to fill a pot with water, it's an empty pot at first.
If we assume that to be true, then we wouldn't say "fill a pot of water"
because it's not a "pot of water" at first. It's an empty pot.
Therefore, it's more correct to say "fill a pot with water" (prep., use) going by probability. My additional 2 cents.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
One use of the preposition with is to indicate that the prepositional complement was used as the instrument by means of which the action specified by the verb was carried out.
(4) Lisa filled the pot with water.
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa with his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach with Sujin's car. |
Using your own definition, use of 'with' in (4) becomes a bit odd. Just replace 'with' with 'by means of':
(5) Jun-ho dazzled Lisa by means of his charm.
(6) They drove to the beach by means of Sujin's car.
...but...
(4) Lisa filled the pot by means of water?? |
I think in this context we can safely assume that "by means of" is synonymous with "through the use of," or, more succinctly, "using." The sentence, "Lisa filled the pot using water," sounds unodd to me. |
I don't think 'using' sounds entirely correct either.
'Lisa filled the pot using a hose' sounds ok, because she's using a hose to put x into y. Using water to put substance x into container y, doesn't imply that substance x = water.
Actually, I agree with Cosmic Hum that this is a bit of a red herring, and that 'fill with water' means what it means. Nevertheless...
| Troglodyte wrote: |
Technically most of the examples in this thread COULD be correct. The problem is that they are all out of context. Without the context it can be hard to say which is correct and which is not.
"They filled the pit of shovels."
Is it correct? In most cases, no, but we don't know the context. Maybe it was a garbage pit specifically for old broken shovels and some guys dumped soil into the pit and covered it over with grass. In that extremely odd but totally possible context, the sentence is correct. On the other hand if it was a regular pit in the ground and the guys used shovels to move dirt into it then the sentence is wrong. |
It could also be a pit of shovels, in that there were already shovels in it, and they added more shovels until it was full. In fact, they filled the pit of shovels with (more) shovels - therefore 'of' and 'with' still have distinct meanings in this case.
Nevertheless, examples of 'fill a glass of water' still occur, and - stubbornly clinging here to the notion that it doesn't (always) sound unnatural - it may not be just a mistake. Do we have any other examples of action + object that is intended result of action? I think we do. E.g. 'Chop up some diced pork' (or 'Chop me up some diced pork'). Or 'Fry me up some fried chicken'. These are not the usual expressions but they exist and mean something like produce object x by method y. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
