She felt exhilarated with the speed and the rush of air.

[Nonverbis]

She felt exhilarated with the speed and the rush of air. (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/exhilarated?q=exhilarated)
He felt strangely exhilarated by the brisk, blue morning. (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/exhilarated)

Could you tell me why Oxford provides us with "exchilarated with"?

Collins definitely states "by something". Maybe "with" is related not to "exhilarated" but to something else (feel + adj. + with)?

 

[probus]

Oxford provides it because it has been used in print in the recent past, as a Google search will show. Here is a link to my search result. Note number 4, The Book of the Holy Light.

"exhilarated with" - Google Search

 

[Nonverbis]

Oxford provides it because it has been used in print in the recent past, as a Google search will show. Here is a link to my search result:

Google is not a reliable source of information. And anyway, it doesn't explain anything.

First of all, Oxford doesn't stipulates any prepositions at all. If prepositions are used, Oxford usually pays attention to that.
A preposition just occurred in examples. What it means is still a mistery to me.

Secondly, Collins does provide us with a preposition. But strangely it is "by". Well, this means that "by" is definitely correct. But Oxford either forgot about prepositions or just thinks they are used rather rarely, which is suspicious.

 

[5jj]

Google is not a reliable source of information

It is fine for checking on whether words and phrases have appeared in the written form.

And anyway, it doesn't explain anything.

It doesn't need to. We wanted to know only whether 'exhilarated with' is recorded in use. It is.

A preposition just occurred in examples. What it means is still a mystery to me.

It means that 'with' is sometimes used with 'exhilarated'.

 

[probus]

@Nonverbis: You'd be well advised to temper your suspicion of Oxford dictionaries. They are among the most prestigious and most reliable of dictionaries.

 

[Nonverbis]

@Nonverbis: You'd be well advised to temper your suspicion of Oxford dictionaries. They are among the most prestigious and most reliable of dictionaries.

I wouldn't be overenthusiastic about their dictionaries. They are good.
But not faultless.

What about an example?

Here you are:

merry adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of merry adjective in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

It's a typo. A capital letter instead of a lower case one.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't understand your example. The first word of any full sentence should be capitalised, and "His face was round and his eyes were merry" is a complete sentence.
I don't think nitpicking about little typos etc is a good use of your time. Concentrate on whether you understand the definitions and usages given.

 

[Nonverbis]

I don't think nitpicking about little typos etc is a good use of your time.

I was told it is authoritative. It is. But if you are a big fun of typos, what can I say.

As for the first word being capitalised, in my example it is the second letter of the first word, which is capitalised here.

 

[Lycidas]

She felt exhilarated with the speed and the rush of air.

It's possible to view the "with"-phrase there as a sentence modifier with situational meaning. Consider that the "with"-phrase can very easily be fronted:

With the speed and the rush of air, she felt exhilarated.

Paraphrase: On account of the speed and the rush of the air, she felt exhilarated.

The sentence may be seen as answering the question "Why did she feel exhilarated?" rather than "What exhilarated her?" or "What did she feel exhilarated by?"

 

[jutfrank]

Nonverbis, I think you've got the wrong idea here. Different prepositions have different meanings. It's only rarely that they don't. You shouldn't try to connect them too closely to preceding words.

As Lycidas suggests above, exhilarated can be understood as either a state or as an action (a past participle verb), depending on the context. If an -ed word is followed by the preposition by, it's typically a verb with the by-phrase showing the agent.

 

[Nonverbis]

If an -ed word is followed by the preposition by, it's typically a verb with the by-phrase showing the agent.

Thank you. But it will not help me in this case. And maybe we can't rely on this logic at all.
Remember that Collins provides us with "by something".


He felt strangely exhilarated by the brisk, blue morning.

 

[5jj]

I think you may have misunderstood the primary purpose of modern dictionaries, nonverbis. It is to explain the neanings of words as suggested by the way native speakers use them. It is not to teach grammar, give examples of good style, or prescribe. The compilers try to do this economically - they cannot possibly illustrate and explain every possible shade of meaning of every word ever recorded (though the editors of the OED did their best). In order to help illustrate the meanings of the words in use, most dictionaries give a number of example sentences. As the M-D editors inforn us: These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'X.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors.

There are dozens of dictionaries at https://www.onelook.com/. If you find some that don't satisfy your requirements, try others.

 

[jutfrank]

Thank you. But it will not help me in this case. And maybe we can't rely on this logic at all.
Remember that Collins provides us with "by something".


He felt strangely exhilarated by the brisk, blue morning.

I don't follow what you mean.

I was suggesting that the thing after by is the thing that does the exhilarating to the receiver of the exhilaration. Think of it as a passive action. Does that not make sense?