“to be prejudice towards/against someone” vs “to be prejudiced against/towards someone” The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InAs a “someone” usage“I am most interested in X.” vs “I am mostly interested in X.”Past participle of “let <object> <verb>”What “have gone to someone” really mean?Pony up, did I knowStep to it, to it“Twenty-four hour” or "twenty-four-hour?Which expression is correct in purpose or on purpose?More often than not, can we use it in different contexts, changing the fixed expression a bit?“for someone to” verb phrases
What is the steepest angle that a canal can be traversable without locks?
Where to refill my bottle in India?
Why is my p-value correlated to difference between means in two sample tests?
How to reverse every other sublist of a list?
Where does the "burst of radiance" from Holy Weapon originate?
What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?
Is bread bad for ducks?
What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?
How are circuits which use complex ICs normally simulated?
Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?
What does "sndry explns" mean in one of the Hitchhiker's guide books?
Dual Citizen. Exited the US on Italian passport recently
Understanding the implication of what "well-defined" means for the operation in quotient group
Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?
Extreme, unacceptable situation and I can't attend work tomorrow morning
Should I write numbers in words or as numerals when there are multiple next to each other?
What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?
Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?
What is the best strategy for white in this position?
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
How come people say “Would of”?
Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?
“to be prejudice towards/against someone” vs “to be prejudiced against/towards someone”
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InAs a “someone” usage“I am most interested in X.” vs “I am mostly interested in X.”Past participle of “let <object> <verb>”What “have gone to someone” really mean?Pony up, did I knowStep to it, to it“Twenty-four hour” or "twenty-four-hour?Which expression is correct in purpose or on purpose?More often than not, can we use it in different contexts, changing the fixed expression a bit?“for someone to” verb phrases
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
add a comment |
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.
– trlkly
Apr 7 at 1:24
add a comment |
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
phrase-usage
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
edited Apr 6 at 16:15
Andrew
71.4k679157
71.4k679157
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
asked Apr 6 at 16:00
KaiqueKaique
1,595522
1,595522
Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.
– trlkly
Apr 7 at 1:24
add a comment |
Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.
– trlkly
Apr 7 at 1:24
Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.
– trlkly
Apr 7 at 1:24
Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.
– trlkly
Apr 7 at 1:24
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.
He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:
He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.
He has a prejudice against women
He is prejudiced against women.
Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:
The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.
This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
1
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
add a comment |
In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.
The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as
He's prejudice personified
but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".
About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.
He's prejudiced against women.
He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
1
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
|
show 2 more comments
Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:
He is prejudice against women.
Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.
But then there's:
He is prejudiced against women.
This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.
Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.
In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).
1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
1
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204197%2fto-be-prejudice-towards-against-someone-vs-to-be-prejudiced-against-towards-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.
He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:
He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.
He has a prejudice against women
He is prejudiced against women.
Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:
The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.
This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
1
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
add a comment |
"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.
He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:
He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.
He has a prejudice against women
He is prejudiced against women.
Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:
The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.
This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
1
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
add a comment |
"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.
He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:
He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.
He has a prejudice against women
He is prejudiced against women.
Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:
The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.
This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.
He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:
He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.
Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.
He has a prejudice against women
He is prejudiced against women.
Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:
The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.
This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
edited Apr 6 at 20:13
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
answered Apr 6 at 16:19
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
71.4k679157
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
1
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
add a comment |
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
1
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 22:02
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
Apr 6 at 23:34
1
1
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.
– Jason Bassford
Apr 6 at 23:38
add a comment |
In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.
The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as
He's prejudice personified
but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".
About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.
He's prejudiced against women.
He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
1
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
|
show 2 more comments
In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.
The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as
He's prejudice personified
but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".
About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.
He's prejudiced against women.
He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
1
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
|
show 2 more comments
In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.
The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as
He's prejudice personified
but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".
About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.
He's prejudiced against women.
He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.
The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as
He's prejudice personified
but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".
About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.
He's prejudiced against women.
He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
edited Apr 6 at 21:10
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
answered Apr 6 at 16:09
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,6051417
4,6051417
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
1
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
|
show 2 more comments
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
1
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
Apr 6 at 16:12
1
1
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 16:14
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:35
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:59
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
Apr 6 at 21:06
|
show 2 more comments
Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:
He is prejudice against women.
Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.
But then there's:
He is prejudiced against women.
This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.
Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.
In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).
1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
1
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
add a comment |
Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:
He is prejudice against women.
Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.
But then there's:
He is prejudiced against women.
This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.
Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.
In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).
1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
1
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
add a comment |
Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:
He is prejudice against women.
Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.
But then there's:
He is prejudiced against women.
This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.
Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.
In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).
1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:
He is prejudice against women.
Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.
But then there's:
He is prejudiced against women.
This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.
Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.
In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).
1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
edited Apr 6 at 20:52
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
answered Apr 6 at 16:56
SamBCSamBC
18.2k2567
18.2k2567
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
1
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
add a comment |
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
1
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
Apr 6 at 20:43
1
1
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".
– SamBC
Apr 6 at 20:52
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204197%2fto-be-prejudice-towards-against-someone-vs-to-be-prejudiced-against-towards-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
-phrase-usage
Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.
– trlkly
Apr 7 at 1:24