contain v.emrace v. include v. involve

[hhtt21]

I would like to get the nuances between related verbs via this self-made example sentece.

Question: What would be the nuances between contain, embrace, include and involve when they are used in the following sentences?

1) Because a large number of crimes involve firearms, now the politicians are debating if they should make an attempt to forbid firearms.

2) Because a large number of crimes include firearms, now the politicians are debating if they should make an attempt to forbid firearms.

3) Because a large number of crimes contain firearms, now the politicians are debating if they should make an attempt to forbid firearms.

4) Because a large number of crimes embrace firearms, now the politicians are debating if they should make an attempt to forbid firearms.

Thank you.

 

[hhtt21]

Only 'involve' is natural.

But please would you like to give a more detailed description why involve is the only natural one?

Thank you

 

[hhtt21]

But here both include and embrace are synonyms.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/involve

Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

They can be synonyms in certain cases. There are not many pairs of words which can be swapped in every case. For example, one common meaning of embrace is a synonym for hug, but include never means that.

 

[hhtt21]

They can be synonyms in certain cases. There are not many pairs of words which can be swapped in every case. For example, one common meaning of embrace is a synonym for hug, but include never means that.

Yes, but I try to examine the verbs for a special case, an example sentence, in this thread. So we have nothing with hug. Please see #1.

Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

Yes, but I try to examine the verbs for a special case, an example sentence, in this thread. So we have nothing with hug. Please see #1.

Thank you.

None of the sentences that replace involve with a verb from the list of synonyms work. Each of those verbs can sometimes replace involve, but none of them can in this case.

 

[tedmc]

Being synonyms does not mean that words can be used interchangeably.

 

[hhtt21]

Being synonyms does not mean that words can be used interchangeably.

If so, what does being synonym mean?

Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

I'd say "synonyms are words that can carry a very similar meaning." The confusion comes from the key word, "can". Synonyms which always carry a very similar meaning are rare.

 

[hhtt21]

I'd say "synonyms are words that can carry a very similar meaning." The confusion comes from the key word, "can". Synonyms which always carry a very similar meaning are rare.

This is confusing to me because first you say "... that can carry a very similar meaning" but then you say "synonyms which always carry a very similar meaning are rare" which means "synonyms does not always carry a very similar meaning" ?

Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

This is confusing to me because first you say "... that can carry a very similar meaning" but then you say "synonyms which always carry a very similar meaning are rare" which means "synonyms does not always carry a very similar meaning" ?

There are a few cases where two words mean the same thing in every situation. I can't think of any right now, and googling the question is tricky; my searches return synonyms for the word "always". :-(

It's much more common for two words to be interchangeable only in certain meanings. For example, in American English, the season that follows summer can be called fall or autumn. When we're talking about that season, we can use either word with no difference in meaning. But fall can also be a noun meaning a rapid descent. Clearly fall and autumn are not synonyms when the subject is something other than the seasons.