of v. for

[hhtt21]

Here is a definition.

Blend: = Combine into one; mix together or become mixed (esp. of different kinds of tea, coffee, tobacco, spirits etc. in order to get a special quality)

Can we change "of" with "for" in the above retaining the original meaning?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Yes.

 

[jutfrank]

Dictionary definitions tend to use of.

 

[hhtt21]

Dictionary definitions tend to use of.

Is there any reason?

 

[GoesStation]

Lexicographers go to great lengths to make definitions as short as possible. Using of rather than for saves one letter.

 

[hhtt21]

Lexicographers go to great lengths to make definitions as short as possible. Using of rather than for saves one letter.

But this seems ridiculous to me because only one letter does not make sense for an entry covering one or two lines on a page.

 

[emsr2d2]

If you save one letter, let's say, forty times on one page, imagine how many letters you will save in a 500-page dictionary! I'll let you do the maths. ;-)

 

[hhtt21]

If you save one letter, let's say, forty times on one page, imagine how many letters you will save in a 500-page dictionary! I'll let you do the maths. ;-)

But an entry should always cover its line with one letter less or more. Other entry cannot be added directly back of the previous one. So it can only save from ink costs, cannot it?

 

[GoesStation]

But an entry should always cover its line with one letter less or more. Other entry cannot be added directly back of the previous one. So it can only save from ink costs, cannot it?

In the days when the convention was established, dictionary pages were set in lead type. Each letter consumed a noticeable amount of lead, which was expensive.

While it's true that most definitions would take the same number of lines with for, a certain percentage would be pushed onto a second line. If even one percent of definitions needed another line, the page count would be significantly higher.

 

[Rover_KE]

Here is a definition.

...

For the second time — who wrote it and where did you find it?

 

[hhtt21]

For the second time — who wrote it and where did you find it?

I cannot find the source this time, unfortunately. It was in my notes but this will be in my mind I will glance up some of my old dictionaries and if I encounter I will add it here. Google cannot find it.

 

[jutfrank]

I take of as shorthand for something like 'in the (sub)sense of ...'

Dictionaries give you first the core sense, then list the subsenses.

 

[Tdol]

Can we change "of" with "for" in the above retaining the original meaning?

I am not sure that we can. A blend of spices is something with an intended result, a blend that is for something looks for a result. The difference may not be large, but I think it exists. A 50/50 blend of Arabica and Robusta coffee beans will produce a result (blend of), but someone trying to achieve a smooth blend as a primary goal may well need to adjust the proportions- they are starting out with a goal.

 

[jutfrank]

I am not sure that we can. A blend of spices is something with an intended result, a blend that is for something looks for a result. The difference may not be large, but I think it exists. A 50/50 blend of Arabica and Robusta coffee beans will produce a result (blend of), but someone trying to achieve a smooth blend as a primary goal may well need to adjust the proportions- they are starting out with a goal.

The entry is for blend as a verb, not a noun.

 

[Tdol]

The part being discussed is separated from the rest of the definition by brackets. This does not affect what I said IMO. We don't say [strike]to blend of teas[/strike]. We do say to blend teas and a blend of teas.