|
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 |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:41 pm Post subject: Fill a pot of water? Grammar question |
 |
|
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
soomin
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
"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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:00 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. |
That's a pretty good explanation to give students on the spot.
Just be careful of the clever (or lucky) students that will give you an example that involves a situation where it's understood from context what the pot or box will be filled with.
e.g.
At the gas station you tell the attendant to "fill the tank". It's assumed from the context that you want him to fill the tank with fuel.
If I'm making water balloons with kids, I might have a small water pump and a bucket. If the water runs out, I would give the bucket to one of the kids and tell him to go to the bathroom and "fill the bucket". From the context the kid should know that he's supposed to fill it will water. In this case, if he fills it with something other than just water, it is not a matter of the message not being clear or accurate. It's simply a matter of the listener acting dumb and playing on the POTENTIAL for ambiguity in the sentence (at the risk of getting a smack on the back of his head). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
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) |
Are you sure you don't mean:
Fill a pot of clay with shampoo (correct)
Fill a pot with clay of shampoo (not so clear at all)
lol  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
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) |
Are you sure you don't mean:
Fill a pot of clay with shampoo (correct)
Fill a pot with clay of shampoo (not so clear at all)
lol |
Hmmmm. I think that what he really meant to say was...
Fill this shampoo pot with water. (incorrect. only hotels and fast food joints do this)
Hide some pot in this fake clay shampoo bottle. (correct. never leave it laying out were the fuzz might see it) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
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) |
Are you sure you don't mean:
Fill a pot of clay with shampoo (correct)
Fill a pot with clay of shampoo (not so clear at all)
lol |
Not sure at all, thanks for the insight.
Context is everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
'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.
|
I'm going to nitpick that one, not to be a jerk but because many students study the grammar a lot and memorize terminology (even if they can't put the grammar into practice). If you start using grammar terminology with them, they may likely catch you out and it will really hurt your rep.
Grammatically speaking, the "instrument" in the example is the word "water".
The word "with" is a preposition (which often starts off adverbial phrases).
Speaking of reputation, sometimes students will intentionally try to catch the teacher in an error. It's always good to have a few generic "no comment" explanations ready for when the situation comes up. When it does come up, it will usually be when you least expect it. A common ploy is to say something like, "That's a good question. In fact it's one that even a lot of native speakers children don't learn the grammar rule in school, even though we all use it correctly. It's a very fine point in English grammar though and it might take a while to give you the background to be able to explain it. If you really want an explanation, I can go over it with you after class. In short though, we use _______ in situation X, and _________ in situation Y." If one of them provides you with proof that someone used it in a way that appears to be incorrect, then just say that English depends largely on context and the using a variation from what is common can be a way of intentionally giving a different meaning or emphasizing one aspect of the sentence. I would not recommend that you do it though until you are very proficient in the nuances of uncommon grammar rules otherwise you may become ambiguous or even sound as though you are making an error. As well, other people who are not fluent i the language may have problems understanding even a native speaker who uses them correctly." Students will rarely come to you after class for the real explanation. If they do, offer to give them a very good explanation next time because you want to make sure that you have all the details right so as not to potentially teach them an error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troglodyte wrote: |
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
'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.
|
I'm going to nitpick that one, not to be a jerk but because many students study the grammar a lot and memorize terminology (even if they can't put the grammar into practice). If you start using grammar terminology with them, they may likely catch you out and it will really hurt your rep.
Grammatically speaking, the "instrument" in the example is the word "water".
The word "with" is a preposition (which often starts off adverbial phrases).
Speaking of reputation, sometimes students will intentionally try to catch the teacher in an error. It's always good to have a few generic "no comment" explanations ready for when the situation comes up. When it does come up, it will usually be when you least expect it. A common ploy is to say something like, "That's a good question. In fact it's one that even a lot of native speakers children don't learn the grammar rule in school, even though we all use it correctly. It's a very fine point in English grammar though and it might take a while to give you the background to be able to explain it. If you really want an explanation, I can go over it with you after class. In short though, we use _______ in situation X, and _________ in situation Y." If one of them provides you with proof that someone used it in a way that appears to be incorrect, then just say that English depends largely on context and the using a variation from what is common can be a way of intentionally giving a different meaning or emphasizing one aspect of the sentence. I would not recommend that you do it though until you are very proficient in the nuances of uncommon grammar rules otherwise you may become ambiguous or even sound as though you are making an error. As well, other people who are not fluent i the language may have problems understanding even a native speaker who uses them correctly." Students will rarely come to you after class for the real explanation. If they do, offer to give them a very good explanation next time because you want to make sure that you have all the details right so as not to potentially teach them an error. |
I was actually trying to be nice, but since you're going to "nitpick" You type a lot of not very much, like a lot of other posters here - no offense.
1. 'Water' is not the instrument. It's simply a noun. Even if it was, I was just matching your babble. I wouldn't go into any more grammatical detail than I needed to with a student. I'd simply focus on the meaning, form and pronunciation as I believe I should, and as experts prescribe. You don't go off on a tangent explaining this and that.
You should outline several uses of both words in different contexts, and make a point of the differences through this.
2. You don't get caught out. You're the teacher and you always know. If the student "catches" you out, you put him/her their place.
3. Your explanation is unnecessarily long and convoluted, you go off on a tangent and I was merely trying to get to the point with a clear and concise explanation.
...
If you want I can refine my above explanation a little.
You would need to not only refine yours but completely rewrite it.
I would still stick by my post as a clear, concise way to explain to the OP, ahead of yours a million times over but that's just my opinion.
I'm only now "nitpicking" your post, as you decided to assume my post was a lesson plan or a strategy for teaching.
Moral of the story: "Don't cast stones if you live in a glass house" or something to that effect.
Keep it simple and concise:
'with' is not always interchangeable with 'of'.
I replaced the battery with another one. V
I replaced the battery of another one. X
That's all you gotta say. Explain it with as little or as much grammar points as you want. It's a post, not a lesson plan.
Attempting the impossible and being an overly-convoluted 'know-it-all' is every bit as detrimental to your "rep" as you call it........
It's human to err. It's dishonest to claim you don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This seems to be a matter of filling the pot and not the end result of a full pot. In Chinese, translations use the word "fetch", as in, "Go fetch me some water BY filling this pot." (THEN YOU WILL HAVE A POT OF WATER). The end result is not realized until the end. A similar thing is happening in Korean, "A with B / A를 B로 채우다".
In English, we just cut to the chase, we want a pot with water in the end. Whether you fill or fetch is immaterial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegasus64128
Joined: 20 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
| Troglodyte wrote: |
| pegasus64128 wrote: |
'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.
|
I'm going to nitpick that one, not to be a jerk but because many students study the grammar a lot and memorize terminology (even if they can't put the grammar into practice). If you start using grammar terminology with them, they may likely catch you out and it will really hurt your rep.
Grammatically speaking, the "instrument" in the example is the word "water".
The word "with" is a preposition (which often starts off adverbial phrases).
Speaking of reputation, sometimes students will intentionally try to catch the teacher in an error. It's always good to have a few generic "no comment" explanations ready for when the situation comes up. When it does come up, it will usually be when you least expect it. A common ploy is to say something like, "That's a good question. In fact it's one that even a lot of native speakers children don't learn the grammar rule in school, even though we all use it correctly. It's a very fine point in English grammar though and it might take a while to give you the background to be able to explain it. If you really want an explanation, I can go over it with you after class. In short though, we use _______ in situation X, and _________ in situation Y." If one of them provides you with proof that someone used it in a way that appears to be incorrect, then just say that English depends largely on context and the using a variation from what is common can be a way of intentionally giving a different meaning or emphasizing one aspect of the sentence. I would not recommend that you do it though until you are very proficient in the nuances of uncommon grammar rules otherwise you may become ambiguous or even sound as though you are making an error. As well, other people who are not fluent i the language may have problems understanding even a native speaker who uses them correctly." Students will rarely come to you after class for the real explanation. If they do, offer to give them a very good explanation next time because you want to make sure that you have all the details right so as not to potentially teach them an error. |
I was actually trying to be nice, but since you're going to "nitpick" You type a lot of not very much, like a lot of other posters here - no offense.
1. 'Water' is not the instrument. It's simply a noun. Even if it was, I was just matching your babble. I wouldn't go into any more grammatical detail than I needed to with a student. I'd simply focus on the meaning, form and pronunciation as I believe I should, and as experts prescribe. You don't go off on a tangent explaining this and that.
You should outline several uses of both words in different contexts, and make a point of the differences through this.
2. You don't get caught out. You're the teacher and you always know. If the student "catches" you out, you put him/her their place.
3. Your explanation is unnecessarily long and convoluted, you go off on a tangent and I was merely trying to get to the point with a clear and concise explanation.
...
If you want I can refine my above explanation a little.
You would need to not only refine yours but completely rewrite it.
I would still stick by my post as a clear, concise way to explain to the OP, ahead of yours a million times over but that's just my opinion.
I'm only now "nitpicking" your post, as you decided to assume my post was a lesson plan or a strategy for teaching.
Moral of the story: "Don't cast stones if you live in a glass house" or something to that effect.
Keep it simple and concise:
'with' is not always interchangeable with 'of'.
I replaced the battery with another one. V
I replaced the battery of another one. X
That's all you gotta say. Explain it with as little or as much grammar points as you want. It's a post, not a lesson plan.
Attempting the impossible and being an overly-convoluted 'know-it-all' is every bit as detrimental to your "rep" as you call it........
It's human to err. It's dishonest to claim you don't. |
My friend Mr. Merriam-Webster would probably disagree with you on the case of the word "water" but if it makes you feel better not to admit that you erred, it's your business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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
