About the operation of language in [be free of]

Question

Hi,I have a naive idea about 'be free of what', taking the bellow for example.[All our food products are completely free of artificial flavorings and colorings. ]-----To artificial flavorings and colorings going with all our food products, we are completely free. -----To our food products being filled with artificial flavorings and colorings, we are completely free.Could any native speaker right it ?Thank you for your assistance.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

The idea is simply 'There are no artificial flavorings and colorings in our food products'.

It's incorrect to say 'we are completely free'. It is the products that are completely free.

Clive

Bepleased · Answer

Hi,

Your instruction like opening a new window to knowing English.

Let's use a simple sentence to explain it.

[Sugar wants to fill with the bottle. ]

------If sugar is as subjectivity, we can say [Sugar wants to fill with the bottle and with nothing. = The bottle is free of sugar. = To sugar to fill with the bottle, the bottle is free.]

------If the bottle is as subjectivity, we can say [In the bottle, no sugar is. = There is no sugar in the bottle.]

To sugar, unto no sugar with the bottle.

To the bottle, unto no sugar being.

To the ideas, give your teaching.

Thank you for your assistance.

Khoff · Answer

We are trying to answer your questions, but you seemed determined to make everything more and more complicated until it becomes completely incomprehensible!

bepleasedLet's use a simple sentence to explain it.
[Sugar wants to fill with the bottle. ]

This is not a simple sentence -- it is a very confusing sentence! "Sugar wants to fill the bottle" makes a certain amount of sense, if we suppose that sugar can "want" anything. But "to fill with the bottle" does not mean anything.

bepleased-If sugar is as subjectivity

I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean "if 'sugar' is the subject of the sentence..."? Do you mean "from the subjective point of view of the sugar"? What do you mean by "if sugar is as subjectivity . . . "?

bepleasedTo sugar, unto no sugar with the bottle.
To the bottle, unto no sugar being.

These are not sentences.

They have no clear subject or verb. We do not understand them at all!

Bepleased · Answer

Hi,

If sugar is as subjectivity-----that means : [sugar] becomes the the thing that is dealt with ;

[To the bottle, unto no sugar being]---In the sight of bottle /where the bottle, there are no sugar.

[To sugar, unto no sugar with the bottle.] ----In the sight of sugar/ in regard to sugar, it doesn'cover / contain the bottle.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Does it worry you that people keep referring to what you write as 'incomprehensible'?

Clive

Bepleased · Answer

khoff[Sugar wants to fill with the bottle]

Hi,

About your saying: [ "to fill with the bottle" does not mean anything], that means sugar wants to use [the action of to fill] to be with the bottle-----The bottle is filled with sugar.

Can it make sense to you this way?

BarbaraPA · Answer

bepleasedHi, About your saying: [ "to fill with the bottle" does not mean anything], that means sugar wants to use [the action of to fill] to be with the bottle--The bottle is filled with sugar. Can it make sense to you this way?

No, that makes no sense at all. I'm sorry, but none of us understand what you are trying to do with your questions about prepositions.

If my keys are on the table and my purse is right next to them on the table, I might say that my keys are WITH my purse on the table.
If my keys are inside my purse, my keys are not WITH my purse, they are IN my purse.
If the bottle is filled with sugar, the sugar is not WITH the bottle. It is IN (or INSIDE) the bottle.

(We still don't understand how sugar can want to do anything. It's inanimate.)

Clive · Answer

Hi,

About your saying: [ "to fill with the bottle" does not mean anything], that means sugar wants to use [the action of to fill] to be with the bottle--The bottle is filled with sugar.

Can it make sense to you this way?

No. 'Sugar' is inanimate. It doesn't want to do anything.

Clive

Bepleased · Answer

Grammar Geek[ If my keys are on the table and my purse is right next to them on the table, I might say that my keys are WITH my purse on the table. If my keys are inside my purse, my keys are not WITH my purse, they are IN my purse. If the bottle is filled with sugar, the sugar is not WITH the bottle. It is IN (or INSIDE) the bottle. (We still don't understand how sugar can want to do anything. It's inanimate.)

Hi,

Thank you for your answer in great detail.

The reason why I did it in this way is that in "The bottle is filled with sugar." I was feeled [sugar takes heart to (= unto) the bottle ----sugar want to attend on / go with / be with the bottle]

"With sugar" give me a strong feeling that "sugar" wants to fill / cover the bottle.

I am uncertain as to whether that feeling is right or not.

I want to say again your answer in detail is very important to me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Khoff · Answer

I suppose that If you're trying to say, "The sugar wants to fill the bottle" or "the sugar wants to be in the bottle," both of those are understandable (though not realistic or true, because of sugar being inanimate). But when you say "sugar wants to fill with the bottle," it's not even grammatically understandable. You wan't use "to fill with" this way. You can say "he fills the bucket with water", or even "the bucket fills with water when it rains," but not "water wants to fill with the bucket."

In any case, "the sugar wants to fill the bottle" is not something you would say in any ordinary circumstance. It certainly does not mean "the sugar is in the bottle," which is an ordinary sentence that might be useful in the real world. And we've gotten so far away from the original discussion of "to be free of something" that I have no idea how we got here.

Also, using "unto" instead of "to" gives your sentences a certain poetic or perhaps Biblical sound, but only confuses the meaning even more. I would suggest that unless you are trying to write Biblical poetry you avoid "unto."

About the operation of language in [be free of]

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions