Korean Job Discussion Forums

[YTMND]

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?

[soomin]

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.

[Troglodyte]

"a pot of water" is a set of words. It's a single grammatical unit. It is the objective of the verb "fill". The head noun is "pot" and it is modified with the description "of water". It is a pot that contains water. It already contains water. It might be full, it might not. That's not specified.

If we weren't talking about a liquid then it could also imply that the pot was constructed of that material. "a pot of clay" could mean a pot made of clay (although most people would say "clay pot") or a pot that someone has put clay into. (Maybe they had no bucket available when they went to collect some clay.)

"fill a pot of water" means that the person should fill that pot. It doesn't say what it should be filled with. From the context (e.g. a recipe), one might guess that it should be filled with water, but perhaps in some cases one would not. You can also show it like this on the board:
[imperative verb] + [[object] + [modifier]]
imperative verb = fill
object = pot
modifier = "of water"

In "fill a pot with water" the object of "fill" is only "a pot". "water" is now the instrument of "fill". It is no longer linked to "a pot". It is linked to "fill". Consider this example.
"I wash with soap."
[subj] + [verb] + [instrument]
"I wash my hands with soap."
[subj] + [verb] + [obj] + [adv phrase = with] + [instrument]


You can put these abstract ideas into practice by consider these sentences.

Fill a pot of water with apples.

If you saw this in a party preparation manual with instructions for setting up a "bobbing for apples" event, you would probably understand that you need a pot (a very large one) with water and you need to put apples into it.


Fill a pot of clay with water.

If you saw this on a crafts website then you would probably understand it to mean that you have a pot that contains clay that needs to be filled with water to soften or liquefy the clay.

If it was a recipe you might understand it as "use a clay pot, instead of a metal pot". Maybe it's important to slow heat the food so a clay pot would be more suitable than a metal pot.


In some contexts, "a pot with water" could also be a single grammatical unit. e.g.
A: "John. Fill a pot."
B: "Which pot?"
A: "A pot with water. Not a pot with wine." "Fill a pot with water."
Ok. I know that's not a common occurrence, but if the words were changed then it might be. (e.g. "We don't have enough money to pay everyone. Who should we pay?" --> "Pay the students with experience.") Because English has largely done away with declensions to indicate the exact grammatical case, and relies largely on context, things CAN be ambiguous in some situations. Is experience the payment that students will receive? OR will the students who have experience receive a monetary payment? It could be both. "Pay the students of Sociology." is less ambiguous though --> students at the sociology faculty will get paid.

But in a practical sense, because English relies so much on the context to interpret a sentence, then even "I'm thirsty. John, go out to the well and fill a pot of water." would be completely understood, even if it does not fit with standard grammar. Most standardized grammar rules are artificial constructs. They may be based on what MOST native speakers use, MOST of the time, but they are often general descriptions.

[Troglodyte]

[pegasus64128]

Explain that though they are both prepositions, they are not always interchangeable.

'with' can be a preposition used as a means, or an instrument, and tell the student that that's the way you intended to use 'with'.

Then you could give further examples:

"I replaced the sand with water" v

'with' is the instrument that allows you to say that water is the substance you are adding after the sand has been removed.

Explain that you can't use 'of' in this case.

"I replaced the sand of water" x

'with' can also be used as a preposition to describe the manner of the action:

"He worked with care." v

"He worked of care" x

[some waygug-in]

This might help explain the difference in meaning between

of and with:

Fill a pot of clay with water. (correct)

Fill a pot of water with clay. (not so clear)

[pegasus64128]

[Troglodyte]

[some waygug-in]