Usual of or usual for which is correct?

john kennedy wrote on 02 Dec 2004:
[nq:1]just wondering which of these two is the correct form it was usual of him to be late it was usual for him to be late they both look alright to me.[/nq]
They don't to me. "for" is what I'd use. I'd use "of" if "usual" were "good" or "thoughtless".

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

[nq:1]just wondering which of these two is the correct form it was usual of him to be late it was usual for him to be late[/nq]
1. Both are grammatical; the second is moreidiomatic.

2. The same meaning inheres in: "He wasusually late," which is yet more idiomatic.

3. One reason ESL is difficult is that Englishseldom has only one way (grammatical or
syntactic) to say a spe

[nq:1]john kennedy wrote on 02 Dec 2004:[/nq]
[nq:2]just wondering which of these two is the correct form ... him to be late they both look alright to me.[/nq]
[nq:1]They don't to me. "for" is what I'd use. I'd use "of" if "usual" were "good" or "thoughtless".[/nq]
Agreed: "... usual of ..." seems unidiomatic enough to be thought wrong. I'd be interested to see a citation. With spproxi

[nq:1]just wondering which of these two is the correct form it was usual of him to be late it was usual for him to be late they both look alright to me.[/nq]
The first, "of him", seems to me to be stating something about his character; it is in his nature to be late.
The second, "for him", appears to be more of a statistical analysis; it has been observed that he is usually late.
The o

[nq:2]just wondering which of these two is the correct form ... him to be late they both look alright to me.[/nq]
[nq:1]The first, "of him", seems to me to be stating something about his character; it is in his nature to ... word that looks outright wrong is "alright" for "allright". Also, would be nice to see sentences begin with capital letters.[/nq]
Agreed on "all right". But I can't ma