I was taught long time ago that when using the prepositions 'for' and 'of' to connect two nouns, the general guidelines would be: 1) use 'of' to indicate some sort of belonging or relationship between the two nouns, such as the handle of the umbrella; 2) use 'for' to indicate the purpose or function of the first noun, such as "a machine for slicing bread".
However, sometimes the two prepositions seem to be exchangeable. In the US, the head responsible for energy administration is called "the Secretary OF Energy"; while in the UK, it is called "the Secretary of State FOR Energy". In this case, I would guess that when using 'of', it means the duties of the secretary belongs to the ambit of energy; and when using 'for', it means the function of the secretary is for energy administration.
In this regard, although I have asked somebody else, I am still not quite understand the rationale behind the selection of prepositions for the following sentence: "The investigation report of/for the incident indicated that nobody should be liable."
People told me that 'of' should be used. I think I understand as it indicates that the 'incident' has some sort of relationship with the 'report'. What puzzles me is that why 'for' could not be used. What is in my mind is that when using 'for', it tells people the function of the 'report' is for the 'incident'.
Top answer
This is a distinction that, as a native speaker, I have never thought much about, but your relationship vs. function distinction seems to be a pretty useful rule. In the example you give, I would say that the report is not "for" the incident - after all, the incident was over before the report ever existed, so the report is not serving any function for the incident.
— Khoff
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
This is a distinction that, as a native speaker, I have never thought much about, but your relationship vs. function distinction seems to be a pretty useful rule. In the example you give, I would say that the report is not "for" the incident - after all, the incident was over before the report ever existed, so the report is not serving any function for the incident. You could say "preparation f
In that case, am I correct that the following two sentences are in order?
1. The plan OF the carnival scheduled for April 20 is great. (the 'of' is to indicate relationship between the plan and the carnival) 2. The plan FOR the carnival scheduled for April 20 is great. (the 'for' is to indicate function of the plan).
Could I extend your rationale to debate that the previous sentence of "The investigation report OF the incident indicated that nobody should be liable" is incorrect as the object after 'OF' should be the report writer rather than an incident?
If not, that is the matter that puzzles me a lot - why in some cases the preposition 'of' just indicates a relationship be
In spite of the fact that there are sometimes rules of thumb for the selection of prepositions, these are often better thought of as completely idiosyncratic and arbitrary. Only by reading a great deal and imitating what you read can you eventually become comfortable with these pesky little words! In the real world of speaking and writing, especially speaking, you have no time t