"be made of" & "be made from"?

[jwschang]

Cas's explanation is quite good. She is quite right that there is no need to choose between the dress is made of silk and the dress was made from silk.
:wink:

Yes, Cas's got an incisive analytical approach.

[Casiopea]

Cas's explanation is quite good. She is quite right that there is no need to choose between the dress is made of silk and the dress was made from silk.
:wink:

Yes, Cas's got an incisive analytical approach.

uhm, well, thanks.
I really need to work on my communication skills, though.
Cas

[Casiopea]

(I can't believe I said "has is". :( )

You're being way too hard on yourself. To me, you're the tops!

Cas :D

[jwschang]

(I can't believe I said "has is". :( )

You're being way too hard on yourself. To me, you're the tops!

Cas :D

Certainly very true. On top of giving very practical explanations, Ron makes this a very friendly and relaxed forum, in which people can learn best.
Which makes me enjoy taking a dig: Ron needs typing lessons for the "has is" bit. :wink:

[Ibeke]

What's the difference between "be made of" and "be made from"?

Right :D or wrong :( ?
Please mark in front of the sentences below with emoticons.
:D for right; :( for wrong.
----------------------------------------
The slipper is made of a tire.
The slipper is made from a tire.
----------------------------------------
These customes are made of animal skins.
These customes are made from animal skins.
-----------------------------------------------------
This special dress is made of silk.
This special dress is made from silk.
-----------------------------------------------------
The beads were made of hardened yellow pine sap.
The beads were made from hardened yellow pine sap.
-----------------------------------------------------
The box is made of gold.
The box is made from gold.
-----------------------------------------------------

And also,
could anyone offer more ambiguous sentences using "be made of" or "be made from"?

I think "of" goes with non-animate sources and "from" goes with animate sources... :?

[Tdol]

Made of = no substancial change- the chair is made of wood (you can see it'swood)
Made from = substantial change- wine is made from grapes(hard to see the source)

[Ibeke]

Made of = no substancial change- the chair is made of wood (you can see it'swood)
Made from = substantial change- wine is made from grapes(hard to see the source)

aj si :P

[Voskresenie]

And what about phrases given in a dictionary

The table is made of stone.
and
The canoe is made from an impermeable wood.
???????

[BobK]

And what about phrases given in a dictionary

The table is made of stone.
and
The canoe is made from an impermeable wood.
???????

I thought Tdol had had the last word, with the chair/grapes thing, ; but this looks like a counterexample; try this:

of marks a constituent, and is in effect an elided form of 'out of'.

from denotes a process. In making the canoe (out of wood) the process involved using a particular sort of wood.

b

PS couldn't resist this childhood memory, prompted by Cas's request:

could anyone offer more ambiguous sentences using "be made of" or "be made from"?

Q What was Joan of Arc /meɪd/ of?
A Orleans

[sws1234]

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?

Students in China mainland also have the very same traditional idea about that.