Atom cores are made from quarks

[Glizdka]

This sentence comes from a YouTube video.

---

"They [atom cores] are made from quarks, which are held together by gluons."

---

I was taught made of represents what the thing is comprised of, made out of represents what the things is comprised of exclusively (nothing else), made from represents what is processed to make the thing, and made with represents an auxiliary ingredient in the makeup of the thing.

I trust Kurzgesagt (the author) as their videos are of high quality and they fact-check everything before publishing. I doubt they don't know what comprises an atom. I believe it's a language error that they've used made from, not made (out) of.

Does it mean the difference between made of and made from is just superficial and doesn't apply to normal, regular, run of the mill people who use made of and made from more or less interchangably?

---

To those who don't know [I don't know what punctuation mark should go here] atom cores are made exclusively of quarks (in stable triplets). Gluons are quark-antiquark doublets unable to achieve equilibrium, but still quarks nontheless.

 

[GoesStation]

Your understanding is OK. "Made from" suggests some intentionality which obviously doesn't apply to the composition of atomic nuclei. It's true that nuclei are comprised of quarks However, experts in a field often find it helpful to imagine themselves making the thing they're describing. What would I make an atomic nucleus out of? That guy made his from quarks; I think I'll do the same.

The distinction between "made of" and "made from" isn't terribly strong.

 

[jutfrank]

I was taught made of represents what the thing is comprised of, made out of represents what the things is comprised of exclusively (nothing else), made from represents what is processed to make the thing, and made with represents an auxiliary ingredient in the makeup of the thing.

Yes, I'd put it in pretty much the same way.

I trust Kurzgesagt (the author) as their videos are of high quality and they fact-check everything before publishing. I doubt they don't know what comprises an atom. I believe it's a language error that they've used made from, not made (out) of.

I basically agree with that. Physicists and physics students are not especially known for their language skills. It's very obvious what he means.

Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the sometimes subtle semantic differences between prepositions. This is evidence of that.

 

[jutfrank]

experts in a field often find it helpful to imagine themselves making the thing they're describing. What would I make an atomic nucleus out of? That guy made his from quarks; I think I'll do the same.

That's a very interesting point and it's certainly possible but I'm not convinced it's the case here. I think it's just as likely that this was simply an error.

 

[Glizdka]

Physicists and physics students are not especially known for their language skills.

I'd love to make it untrue, moster.

Given the facts about the makeup of atoms, would you go with made of or made out of quarks?

 

[SoothingDave]

I've never heard of any distinction between "made of" and "made out of."

Like GS said, these distinctions are not very strong. I would not assume a native speaker who said "made of" is necessarily making a distinction with "made from."

 

[jutfrank]

Before even reading the full content of your post #1, my initial reaction to the speaker's use of made from was that it was wrong and that he should have used made of.

Your distinction between made of and made out of is interesting but I don't think it's quite right. It is certainly incorrect to say that made out of has any sense of 'exclusively', as you put it.

My friend makes jewellery out of feathers and bits of scrap metal.

made out of suggests that there has been some kind of transformation, in which case it is not appropriate here. The idea here is simply to say what an atom consists of, not to say anything about how the quarks came to be there.

The only appropriate word here is made of.

I should now point out that when I said:

Yes, I'd put it in pretty much the same way.

I hadn't read what you said carefully. I agree with everything you said except the part about made out of.

 

[Skrej]

I've never heard of any distinction between "made of" and "made out of."

Me neither. I can't say that I've ever really paid attention, but I'm pretty sure I use 'made of', 'made out of', and 'made from' interchangeably.

 

[SoothingDave]

Me neither. I can't say that I've ever really paid attention, but I'm pretty sure I use 'made of', 'made out of', and 'made from' interchangeably.

"Made with" is different, because it implies one ingredient of more than one. Our cocktails are made with the finest liquors.

But a chair being "made of" wood, or "made from" is no distinction to me.

 

[lotus888]

Atom nuclei are made of quarks, which are held together by gluons.

Now, of course, there are the string and superstring theories.

 

[jutfrank]

I've never heard of any distinction between "made of" and "made out of."

I'm not sure what you mean by "heard of" there.

There is a pretty clear distinction in the way we use these forms, which gets to the core meaning imparted by the particle out.

One way to reveal this is to look at active voice uses. Consider the following sentence:

God made Adam out of clay.

The basic idea here is that there was a process of transformation.

You can see in this sentence the verb pattern make something out of something, which can be passivised to:

Adam was made out of clay. :tick:

An important difference with made of is that there is no comparable active voice pattern (at least in modern English). You can't make something of something.

God made Adam of clay. :cross:

If you try to passive this to:

Adam was made of clay.

there is a loss of agency (there's no God involved). The sentence reads in a semantically distinct way, i.e., as a statement of what Adam's body consisted of. That is to say, the sentence says only something about Adam's state.

 

[Glizdka]

If make out of has a sense of transformation, how does it differ from made from?

 

[jutfrank]

If make out of has a sense of transformation, how does it differ from made from?

The preposition is different. from focuses on the source material.