from czy of?

Kiedy używa się 'break free from'
a kiedy 'break free of' ?

Czy użycie from zamiast of zmienia znaczenie?
You can break/ be/feel...free from and break/be/feel free of...
But ... free from is not the same as free of...
Free from addiction seems to distance the ex-addict from the source of addiction (leaving the problem behind), whereas free of.. presents the state of freedom of addiction.
Let me get back to you on this one.
Cytat: Janski
You can break/ be/feel...free from and break/be/feel free of...
But ... free from is not the same as free of...
Free from addiction seems to distance the ex-addict from the source of addiction (leaving the problem behind), whereas free of.. presents the state of freedom of addiction.
Let me get back to you on this one.

So if an addict wants to quit his addiction, can he say:
'I'm breaking free from drinking.' ('Uwalniam się od pijaństwa')
?
edytowany przez land: 27 kwi 2024
So if an addict wants to quit his addiction, can he say:
'I'm breaking free from drinking.' ('Uwalniam się od pijaństwa')
?


Both would be OK. The difference, however slight, would just be a mental sensation.

Those prepositions deserve some attention though. In spatiotemporal situations, e.g. from Warsaw to Berlin, from Christmas to Easter, Warsaw and Christmas are starting points or beginnings. Of Warsaw/Of Christmas to Berlin/to Easter doesn’t work.
Also, from contrasts with to and with it introduces an interval separating a beginning or start and a terminus of some sort. However, what’s more important, from doesn’t need the presence of to for the separation to surface. (“…coming from Warsaw”).

Outside of the spatiotemporal relations, from prompts for a source or origin.
Other verbs that clearly call from sources or origins (and assimilate their prepositions from the spatiotemporal domain) seem to confirm that and in present-day English do not accept of; today of would rather prompt for a cause:
Emerge from (not of), disappear from (not of), elicit from (not of), evolve from (not of), derive from (not of), guess from (not of), suffer from (not of)…

Some verbs can accept both of and from allowing the ever so slightly different percepts of source vs. cause: Die from/of TB, from/of wounds…
But how does the causal of relate to breaking free?
Cytat: mg
But how does the causal of relate to breaking free?

Breaking free of does not relate to causality.

I started from
Free from addiction seems to distance the ex-addict from the source of addiction (leaving the problem behind), whereas free of.. presents the state of freedom of addiction.”

Then I said,
"Those prepositions deserve some attention though."

The rest was about the preps. alone. It’s the aspect of distancing that from prompts for and which is beyond the reach of of in present-day English.

We could skip all the verb examples and show that the difference in this respect can also be found among nouns; e.g., (i) “a piece from a sculpture” vs. (ii) “a piece of a sculpture”; (i) shows a separation between the piece and the sculpture, whereas “(ii) does not. Actually, “of” integrates rather than separates. Another example: Senator Walter Green is from Iowa, now of Maine (= born and supposedly raised in Iowa, now representing
Maine.)
edytowany przez Janski: 29 kwi 2024
Cytat: Janski
Free from addiction seems to distance the ex-addict from the source of addiction (leaving the problem behind), whereas free of.. presents the state of freedom of addiction.

'I'm breaking free from drinking.' ('Uwalniam się od pijaństwa')
Można też dać break free of, ale lepiej pasuje from, tak?

« 

Pomoc językowa

 »

Pomoc językowa