|
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 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| soomin wrote: |
I would explain it like this...
You can't say "fill a pot of water" because that implies the pot is made of water, or already has water in it.
You use "with" because you are not going to fill the pot (with your body), but "with" something else.
For example, if someone said "Fill the box." the next person would ask "With what?" because they themselves are not the object that will be inside of (filling) the box. |
This is logical and all but it seems a bit pedantic to me. If Jack and Jill can 'fetch a pail of water', then it's not much of a stretch to say they can 'fill a pail of water'.
After all, prepositions are notorious for having multiple meanings in English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
This is logical and all but it seems a bit pedantic to me. If Jack and Jill can 'fetch a pail of water', then it's not much of a stretch to say they can 'fill a pail of water'.
After all, prepositions are notorious for having multiple meanings in English. |
Do you really think it is pedantic?
'Fetch a pail of water'...has an entirely different meaning than 'fill a pail of water'.
(for both the verbs and the prepositions)
It seems fairly important to stress the difference in meaning...no?
As you said...prepositions are notorious for having multiple meanings...and this is a very clear one.
Actually seems like a great example to clarify that very point.
Or, quite likely, I am misunderstanding your point.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Certain posters on this board seem to be full of s^&*(). correct.
Certain posters on this board seem to be full with s^&*(). incorrect.
Myself being chief amongst them. *.*
It seems to be one of those things that can best be chalked up to
"common usage" and no clear rule can be discerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
This is logical and all but it seems a bit pedantic to me. If Jack and Jill can 'fetch a pail of water', then it's not much of a stretch to say they can 'fill a pail of water'.
After all, prepositions are notorious for having multiple meanings in English. |
Do you really think it is pedantic?
'Fetch a pail of water'...has an entirely different meaning than 'fill a pail of water'.
(for both the verbs and the prepositions)
It seems fairly important to stress the difference in meaning...no?
As you said...prepositions are notorious for having multiple meanings...and this is a very clear one.
Actually seems like a great example to clarify that very point.
Or, quite likely, I am misunderstanding your point. |
Well, I was thinking 'of' could actually have the same meaning as 'with', but of course it doesn't in most dialects (although, as an older meaning, it might have fossilized in an idiom).
But mainly I was thinking 'I know what's meant so what the heck'. Suppose, for instance, you said 'Give me a glass of beer, will you?'. Couldn't you just as easily say 'Fill me a glass of beer, will you?'. If glass-of-beer becomes a single lexical unit, we no longer analyse the functions of the separate parts and the illogicality vanishes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
This is logical and all but it seems a bit pedantic to me. If Jack and Jill can 'fetch a pail of water', then it's not much of a stretch to say they can 'fill a pail of water'.
After all, prepositions are notorious for having multiple meanings in English. |
They can fetch a (pail with water in it). It doesn't make sense for them to fill a (pail with water in it), since the term "pail of water" implies that there is a pail with water already in it. Otherwise, why would it be called a pail of water instead of just a pail?
As to the glass of beer. You wouldn't "fill a glass of beer" since there's already beer in it. Though you could certainly "top off a glass of beer", or more likely "top off my glass of beer".
Last edited by comm on Fri May 11, 2012 7:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Certain posters on this board seem to be full of s^&*(). correct.
Certain posters on this board seem to be full with s^&*(). incorrect.
Myself being chief amongst them. *.*
It seems to be one of those things that can best be chalked up to
"common usage" and no clear rule can be discerned. |
Nicely put.
Not saying there isn't a prescriptive rule that defines the usage for that construction...but we don't even need to go that far.
Descriptively, this 'phrase' is used commonly enough to define itself.
Much the same with using prepositions in phrasal verbs...native speakers take them for granted...but they are learned by usage alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| But mainly I was thinking 'I know what's meant so what the heck'. Suppose, for instance, you said 'Give me a glass of beer, will you?'. Couldn't you just as easily say 'Fill me a glass of beer, will you?'. If glass-of-beer becomes a single lexical unit, we no longer analyse the functions of the separate parts and the illogicality vanishes. |
Yes...you are making a good point, but I guess the point I am getting at is...does anyone actually speak that way?
Wasn't the student in the OP just mistaken?
Does anyone say...'Fill me a glass of beer?
Sure we can understand the intent...but who says this?
Don't we say..."Fill my glass"...or "Get/give me a glass of beer"?
'Glass of beer' can be viewed as single lexical unit...but it would still follow common usage when following certain prepositions....yes?
Not trying to negate your point...just checking on the usage....perhaps somewhere people actually do use that construction...and that would be news to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Certain posters on this board seem to be full of s^&*(). correct.
Certain posters on this board seem to be full with s^&*(). incorrect.
Myself being chief amongst them. *.*
It seems to be one of those things that can best be chalked up to
"common usage" and no clear rule can be discerned. |
lol
I too can be full of s#$t.
But, while I can be filled with s#$t to become full of s#$t, I can't be filled of s#$t to ..
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
"Fill a pot of water" sounds weird to me. I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct. I won't testify to that.
"What did he fill the pot with? He filled it with water. " V
"What did he fill the pot of? He filled it of water." X (to me at least) |
This +1
The simplest example or explanation is usually best.
To students who are enamored with long grammatical explanations I say,
I am not a grammar teacher. Here's a grammar book, go read it.
If I were teaching a writing class, I would try and delve into the intricacies
of grammar. But in conversation classes, there isn't really time to
go into much detail, and it isn't fair to the rest of the class to spend too
much time on one student's question.
It also depends on the student's attitude in asking the question;
Is the student genuinely interested in hearing my response or is he
just trying to trip me up in front of other students?
Quite often, it was the latter. |
& thanks for that.
@ http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/troglodyte
'with' is also a beloved instrument according to dictionary.com
The Cambridge dictionary states that it can be used as a 'method'.
I'm not concerned with your insecure large red type. I'm concerned with your detour to dwell on 'water as an instrument' which I don't see as being key to the argument. The difference between 'with' and 'of' is key and 'water' has nothing to do with it, in any context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| But mainly I was thinking 'I know what's meant so what the heck'. Suppose, for instance, you said 'Give me a glass of beer, will you?'. Couldn't you just as easily say 'Fill me a glass of beer, will you?'. If glass-of-beer becomes a single lexical unit, we no longer analyse the functions of the separate parts and the illogicality vanishes. |
Yes...you are making a good point, but I guess the point I am getting at is...does anyone actually speak that way?
Wasn't the student in the OP just mistaken?
Does anyone say...'Fill me a glass of beer?
Sure we can understand the intent...but who says this?
Don't we say..."Fill my glass"...or "Get/give me a glass of beer"?
'Glass of beer' can be viewed as single lexical unit...but it would still follow common usage when following certain prepositions....yes?
Not trying to negate your point...just checking on the usage....perhaps somewhere people actually do use that construction...and that would be news to me. |
Good point.
I don't doubt that use of 'with' is much more common, but a quick google search shows that we do use 'of' sometimes, e.g 'fill a glass of water' as here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_you_fill_a_glass_of_water_from_a_faucet_and_then_let_the_glass_sit_undisturbed_for_2_hours_you_will_see_small_bubbles_sticking_to_the_glass_what_are_the_bubbles_why_did_they_form
Seems natural to me.
It would be interesting to see if there are any differences in usage between the 2 forms, but you'd probably need a concordance to figure that out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
|
|
| YTMND wrote: |
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? |
You are right, in prescriptive English we do not say "to fill a pot of water," we say "to fill a pot with water." It's a commonly made mistake, even by native speakers - just type it into Google to find out. The mistake becomes more obvious if we change the vessel from pot to cup. I think most people would agree that saying "Fill a cup of water" is incorrect, while "Fill a cup with water" is correct.
Your student was confused by the differences between the prepositions of and with, as well as by the fact that phrases like "pot of water" or "pot of coffee" are more frequent in the input than "with water."
When following a noun the preposition of can be used to indicate that the noun which it precedes has a certain quality or characteristic.
(1) He made a pot of coffee.
(2) She is a woman of considerable intelligence.
(3) They were so thirsty that they drank a whole cup of water.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| used as the instrument by means of which the action specified by the verb was carried out |
I understand this rule and I have learned in it in a Korean and Japanese context. However, in this situation "with water" is not really a means.
The closest I can come logically to using the rule is applying the "means" to "filling the pot", as in, "Please get me some water, by filling a pot."
One is an end result, wanting water, with the means being filling the pot.
The other is focusing on the act of filling the pot "with" before bringing it somewhere, not the end result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ad-hominem
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
'with' is also a beloved instrument according to dictionary.com
The Cambridge dictionary states that it can be used as a 'method'.
|
Here's what the Cambridge (online) dictionary has to say about the word "with".
| Quote: |
with
/wɪθ/, /wɪ�/ prep (USING)
Definition
� using (something) or by means of (something):
I bought it with my gift certificate.
The label on the box says, "Handle with care."
He caught the crabs with a large net. |
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/with_1?q=with
Hmmm. It doesn't seem to make ANY reference to instruments. (I also checked the British version as well.) But fear not for your dictionary.com link DOES mention instruments.
| Quote: |
with [with, with]
preposition
1. accompanied by; accompanying: I will go with you. He fought with his brother against the enemy.
2. in some particular relation to (especially implying interaction, company, association, conjunction, or connection): I dealt with the problem. She agreed with me.
3. characterized by or having: a person with initiative.
4. (of means or instrument) by the use of; using: to line a coat with silk; to cut with a knife.
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/with?s=t
What's that it says at number 4? My eyes must be playing tricks on me. It looks like it say "of means or instrument". OF instrument. It's used in relation to means or instruments. Hey, they've even given some examples.
to line a coat with silk --> with silk = preposition + INSTRUMENT
to cut with a knife --> with a knife = preposition + INSTRUMENT/MEANS
What instrument did they use to line the coat? Did they use a with or did they use a piece of silk?
What instrument or means did they they use to cut the bologna? Did they use a with or a knife?
But let's for a moment ignore the proof that you've provided against yourself. Assuming that "water" in the sentence "Fill a pot with water" is not an instrumental noun (I think that we can both agree that it's a noun, right?) then what type of noun is it? Is it the subject? Is the water doing the filling? No. You are. Is it the object? Is the water itself being filled? No. The pot is. Maybe it's the possessive? Does the water own the pot? Hmmm. Maybe it's something a bit more obscure like the vocative. Oh water, blessed are you with which the pot is filled.
You keep saying that I'm wrong about the case of the word "water", so please enlighten us all as to it's true case.
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
I'm not concerned with your insecure large red type. I'm concerned with your detour to dwell on 'water as an instrument' which I don't see as being key to the argument. The difference between 'with' and 'of' is key and 'water' has nothing to do with it, in any context. |
So once you've been proven wrong, then the point is not longer important?
So far, based only on this thread, here's your academic method:
1. You're always right (among peers and the students) and if someone tries to show otherwise they should be put in their place.
2. If you can't find proof for your argument, provide a fictional citation and hope that no one checks.
3. If it's really clear that you're wrong, resort to an ad hominem argument to divert the audience.
Now how about you cut the bologna (with any instrument you see fit) and either prove your argument or admit that you erred.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So far, based only on this thread, here's your academic method:
1. You're always right (among peers and the students) and if someone tries to show otherwise they should be put in their place.
2. If you can't find proof for your argument, provide a fictional citation and hope that no one checks.
3. If it's really clear that you're wrong, resort to an ad hominem argument to divert the audience. |
So far, based on this thread, here's my response to your 3 most important contributions, that are nothing to do with the OP's request:
1. I admit I erred your non-point which has nothing to do with the thread..
You are angry that I received a +1 for my short, to the point, and useful method, based on the 'form' of the word. Maybe you are angry about this as you feel your overly convoluted, long-winded, non-point, focusing on grammar structures that are not part of the issue, is more relevant. Also, you seem to be referring to my willingness to put a student in their place. I don't bend over trog. Some subtleties of the English language can be argued over perpetually and are. I won't have a student abuse that fact. You will parrot off your copy and paste solutions with no ingenuity of your own from a dictionary which would be ok, if you had the methodology to back it up with a decent delivery. In Korea, a student is expected to bow to your knowledge, and that's another good reason not to get caught up too much in grammar points, especially if they are not key to the point.
2. You cite your arguments well - arguments that are nothing to do with the OP's question. Nobody cares that 'water' was the instrument. That's not even the issue. You don't need to know that 'water' is an instrument to explain the difference between 'with' and 'of' in the context provided by the OP. Water is water. It's a noun in that case. It's not at all important that is both an instrument and a noun. That would just confuse Ss' even more..
3. You seem to be angry that I'm calling it as I see it. If you set yourself up for ad hominem comments, then that's exactly what you get. I don't worry about DEFINING people like you troglodyte. You do that YoUrSeLf.
Do I care that I could be wrong about 'water' being a device or instrument. NO .......
I care about giving a poor response to the original OP's query.
I'm here to help. You're here to win an argument you lost some while back with your crappy, overly uninteresting methodology about explaining something that really is quite simple to explain:
I will finish this post as I have finished my previous posts, in the manner you have FAILED TO DO.
I will make a simple, concise, and accurate response to the OP's request:
You cannot easily fill a troglodyte with knowledge. V ..troglodyte + [prep., use] + [instrument]/[noun]
You cannot easily fill a troglodyte of knowledge. V ..troglodyte + [prep., possessive] + [instrument]/[noun]
You cannot easily fill a troglodyte of knowledge.X ..troglodyte + [prep., use] + [instrument]/[noun]
Happy now??
According to the Cambridge dictionary, 'with' is a use / implies using. 'knowledge' is the instrument in the above.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/with_2
I stand corrected, on not having specific knowledge on a lexical definition I would never have used in my explanation in the first place (hence maybe a reason I was wrong), as it's not necessary to answer the OP's dilemma.
Troglodyte, if you could spend half as much time fighting over 'water' being an instrument,
and instead spend more time on 'with' being a use, you could have made your point more succinctly and less offensively.
Anyway, it's been enlightening. Please don't provoke me further. I'll bite.
Just insult me one more time max. lol
The problem of the OP's student might be that he/she thinks you can use 'of' in the context of use. You can't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. Pout much?
I never said that I'd use the whole explanation with a class. If the OP asked about it though, then he might find it useful to know the actual explanation for why one sentence sounds fine and the other doesn't. When a certain format "sounds right" there's often an underlying rule at play.
The OP gave no indication that the student who brought up the issue did so just to make problems. We don't even know from the post whether it happened in or after class. Such a student may actual want to know something. I know that this is a really crazy concept, but some teachers actually know the material that they're teaching, some even have this nutty concept that they should actually encourage their students to think for themselves and question something if it seems wrong. What's more some students (you'd better sit down for this, it's a doozy) they actually go to the teacher for an explanation. I know. Bizarre, right?
We've already seen that you can and at least on some occasions err. So, since you're not infallible why should students just "bow to your knowledge" and accept what you say as unarguable fact?
No one likes disruptive students who try to make problems by catching the teacher making an error. Although if you try to bluff your way with an imaginary explanation or by making up terminology as you see fit, and especially if you simply tell them that you're right and they shouldn't question you, then you're basically proving their point to the class. You don't know what you're teaching and you're trying to cover up your ignorance. If you don't know, you've only got 2 options. Admit to not knowing or postpone giving a response until you DO know it.
Initially I also posted on this thread to help out. I stayed though because you're acting like a jerk so I enjoyed showing that you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 3:25 am Post subject: Re: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
|
|
| 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?? |
|
| 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
