repent of/for

[Untaught88]

Hi,

I have seen examples in the Cambridge dictionary where both "of" and "for" are used after "repent".

Are both acceptable?

 

[emsr2d2]

As is always the case on the forum, please give us full sentences to consider, and provide a link to, or a screenshot of, the relevant page of the dictionary.
I think you've been a member here long enough that we shouldn't have to remind you of this.

 

[Untaught88]

1. He repented (of his sins) just hours before he died.
2. But what if the criminal genuinely repented for his sins?

 

[emsr2d2]

No preposition is needed. We simply say "repent one's sins" so it would be "He repented his sins just hours before he died" or simply "He repented just hours before he died". The definition of "repentance" contains the entire idea.

 

[jutfrank]

I think the following are basically equivalent in meaning.

a) He repented his sins.
b) He repented of his sins.
c) He repented for his sins.

They differ grammatically but the meaning is more or less the same. If there is a difference in nuance, I'd say that b) is more likely to mean that he repented more generally. In a), the fact that his sins is a direct object of a transitive verb could focus more on his repentance of some specific sins. If there's a difference in nuance between b) and c), I'd say that c) focuses more on the special purpose of his repentance.

 

[Kontol]

No preposition is needed. We simply say "repent one's sins" so it would be "He repented his sins just hours before he died" or simply "He repented just hours before he died". The definition of "repentance" contains the entire idea.

Does "would be" in your sentence mean "will be?" So it will be ...

No preposition is needed = there is no preposition is needed.

You drop "there is" here, don't you?

 

[5jj]

No preposition is needed = there is no preposition is needed.

You drop "there is" here, don't you?

No.

There is no preposition is needed is not correct English.

 

[Tarheel]

If @emsr2d2 said "would be" that's what she meant to say.

 

[Kontol]

If @emsr2d2 said "would be" that's what she meant to say.

I don"t understand. Could you explain?

 

[emsr2d2]

No preposition is needed = there is no preposition is needed.
You dropped "there is" here, don't didn't you?

Not at all. The word "needed" there means the same as "necessary" or "required". If I'd wanted to start with "There is", I'd have followed it with "no need for a preposition".

 

[Tarheel]

I don"t understand. Could you explain?

I couldn't have said it any plainer. If you change "would be" to "will be" you change the meaning of the sentence.

Thankfully, they pay me by the post.