0
Milky Posted 19 years ago
Linguistics Studies

rename to + fit

Question 1.

Does anyone here use "rename + to"? I find it odd. I always thought "rename" contains "to" (rename = assign a new name to).

EG

We're going to pass a bill to force the Congress cafeteria to rename "French fries" to "freedom fries."

Question 2.

Is there something odd about this use of "fit"?

I remember I hated it, and would just go with my ear, but apparently the teachers didn't think it fit the formal grammar of it enough and dinged me.
  

Top answer

Both sound normal to me. With or without to on the first. Both seem OK.

— CalifJim

  • Both sound normal to me.
  • With or without to on the first.
  • Both seem OK.
  • CJ
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.

11 Answers
0
Both sound normal to me.
With or without to on the first. Both seem OK.

CJ
0
0
CalifJimBoth sound normal to me.
With or without to on the first. Both seem OK.

CJ

But doesn't "rename" already imply "to"? It's meaning is "assign a new name to".
0
0
MilkyQuestion 1.

Does anyone here use "rename + to"? I find it odd. I always thought "rename" contains "to" (rename = assign a new name to).

EG

We're going to pass a bill to force the Congress cafeteria to rename "French fries" to "freedom fries."

Question 2.

Is there something odd
0
0
<In #1 you have to recognise that there are two actions - renaming "french fries"; and changing the name to "freedom fries". Either "to" or "as" will make the change clear.>

Now this is odd. It seems that for centuries, readers have not needed that extra clarity. Why now?
0
0
<#2 is a poor sentence in itself, but that is mainly because it lacks enough context to make proper sense.>

Pleeasse! It's obvious that the sentence is taken out of its context.
0
0
I am pleased that you believe it is obviously taken out of its context. It would really help to have all of the context in order to understand exactly what is being said. Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious.

I am not sure that your response is appropriate or polite.
0
0
<It would really help to have all of the context in order to understand exactly what is being said.>

And how would that help you to decide if "fit" was appropriately used in that sentence?
0
0
But doesn't "rename" already imply "to"? It's meaning is "assign a new name to".
It wouldn't imply "to" if you took the meaning as "change the name of".

Then you would have a case for including 'to' just as it appears in the quoted sentence above.

to rename "French fries" to "Freedom fries"
is
to change the name of "French
0
0
<It wouldn't imply "to" if you took the meaning as "change the name of".>

That would be "change the name of *** to ****", now wouldn't it?

And see how "to" is included here:

reanimate = bring to life
reawaken = cause to become awake or conscious once again
rebirth = the coming to life once more

Would you use rebirth to life?
0
0
So are you saying you meant to define "rename" as "assign a new name *** to ***" instead of "assign a new name to ***"?

CJ
0

Related Questions