Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RonBee If I say a dress is made of silk I mean the dress is silk. If I say the dress was made from silk I mean that silk was used to make it. In the second instance, it is possible (tho not likely) that it is not a silk dress.
There has been a discussion about this before. I will see if I can find it. |
We have a "traditional" idea about these two phrases:
be made of --> non-chemical change (only physical change)
be made from --> chemical change
(Do you agree?)
This concept has been very popular and widely taught here in Taiwan.
But a teacher here augued that this is not proper!
He is the chief editor of the Time Express magazine, which is a bilingual version for Time magazine.
And he also got a full score of TOEFL.
==============================================
He said that it's the problem of "direct" or "indirect."
ex: These shoes were made ___ rubber tires.
In Taiwan's grammar reference books, this sentence will be interpreted
as a "non-chemical" change in the relationship between shoes and rubber tires.
Therefore, those books just give the answer "of."
But native speakers would say "These shoes were made
from rubber tires."
If the saying of chemical and non-chemical change stands, then this sentence would be an exception, which implies a bad grammar!
(A good grammar should be a universal one.)
So it's not the problem of chemical change or physical change!
It's the problem of "more direct" or "not so direct."
Ex:
1. a chair made of wood --> more direct --> direct!
You can still see the wood.
2. wine made from grapes --> not so direct --> indirect!
You cannot see the grapes anymore!
(Above is my rephrasing his ideas, not his original article.)
=============================================
So I've got a little confused here by your version of answers.
Any further explanation?