5 ms·

As a native English speaker, there is zero patronizing connotation. Whereas "capable at" is never used, so it just looks like a typo.

by sjansen 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago
"Capable at" is sometimes used, and is correct; it's just significantly more unusual than "capable of". COCA (the Corpus of Contemporary American [English]) lists 32 results for "capable at", such as: > I don't think she's capable at this point of doing what's needed (spurious) > Goldenrod was most capable at locating specimens in the black intervals > a very cool band that's, you know, extremely capable at what they do > a helping agency capable at reaching out at low cost and high impact (not spurious, but this one feels unnatural to me -- I'd prefer of here) Anyway, 32 hits for "capable at", of which 17 are spurious and 15 are genuine; 14710 hits for "capable of" (I didn't bother to sample those, but the rate of spurious hits will be significantly lower). I believe StavrosK is correct that "capable of reading German" means the opposite of "unable to read German", while "capable at reading German" means "having a high skill level in reading German". I don't agree that "capable of" would be patronizing in this context, since it's very common in English-speaking forums for people to be totally unable to read German.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  There's a difference between "correct" and "how people actually talk." I was offering a correction because when learning a language, you don't want to sound like textbook. Sure, it's all technically correct, but the goal is to sound natural. I don't know anyone who says "capable at," so it "just sounds wrong."
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Basically, the two parses are different. One is "being <capable of>" something, as in "I didn't think he was capable of murder", i.e. "I didn't believe he could commit murder". The second parse is "being capable <at something", as in "be skilled <at something>". "I didn't think he was capable at murder" sounds weird and would mean "I didn't think he was very good at killing people", but you'd use it in something like "he was capable at math". The "patronizing" part was because "this is for people who are capable of German" sounds more condescending to me than "this is for people who can read German".
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > Basically, the two parses are different. I'm not convinced this is the case. Standard analysis would say that "capable of murder" parses as (capable (of (murder)), not ((capable of) (murder)). Assuming that analysis is correct, you have a prepositional phrase (with of) licensed by the adjective "capable" itself in specific, and a prepositional phrase (with at) licensed by the semantics of the adjective but not by "capable" specifically. Some examples of what I'm talking about: 1. "I believe in live-and-let-live." Here, the verb believe takes a complement that must be marked by in. An in-phrase with the same sense cannot be attached to other arbitrary verbs; it can appear here because it is licensed by believe. Invest also licenses an in-complement, with a meaning related to investing but unrelated to believing: "I prefer to invest in small companies". But "I affirm in live-and-let-live" is nonsensical despite being semantically very similar to "I believe in live-and-let-live". Affirm does not license such a complement. The adjective capable individually licenses an of-phrase in this manner. 2. "He ran to the park." Here, the phrase to the park is not licensed by the verb run. It is licensed by the semantics of running as a verb of motion, and can appear with the same sense attached to any motion verb: "He swam to the park"; "He ambled to the park"; "He somersaulted to the park"; etc. Capable licenses an at-phrase in this manner, just like good, skilled, adept, inept, competent, etc. 3. "The ceremony begins at 8:00." Here, at 8:00 is licensed by all verbs that exist now or might in the future. Semantically, it has nothing to do with the verb. The thing is, the parse tree you get for all of those cases is exactly the same. It's true that the of example is bound to capable more closely than the at example is, but the closeness doesn't lie in the parse tree, it lies in the level of generality at which the complement is licensed.

As a native English speaker, there is zero patronizing connotation. Whereas "capable at" is never used, so it just looks like a typo.

by sjansen 10y ago

As a native English speaker, there is zero patronizing connotation. Whereas "capable at" is never used, so it just looks like a typo.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

"Capable at" is sometimes used, and is correct; it's just significantly more unusual than "capable of". COCA (the Corpus of Contemporary American [English]) lists 32 results for "capable at", such as: > I don't think she's capable at this point of doing what's needed (spurious) > Goldenrod was most capable at locating specimens in the black intervals > a very cool band that's, you know, extremely capable at what they do > a helping agency capable at reaching out at low cost and high impact (not spurious, but this one feels unnatural to me -- I'd prefer of here) Anyway, 32 hits for "capable at", of which 17 are spurious and 15 are genuine; 14710 hits for "capable of" (I didn't bother to sample those, but the rate of spurious hits will be significantly lower). I believe StavrosK is correct that "capable of reading German" means the opposite of "unable to read German", while "capable at reading German" means "having a high skill level in reading German". I don't agree that "capable of" would be patronizing in this context, since it's very common in English-speaking forums for people to be totally unable to read German.

heartsucker 10y ago
There's a difference between "correct" and "how people actually talk." I was offering a correction because when learning a language, you don't want to sound like textbook. Sure, it's all technically correct, but the goal is to sound natural. I don't know anyone who says "capable at," so it "just sounds wrong."
StavrosK 10y ago
Basically, the two parses are different. One is "being <capable of>" something, as in "I didn't think he was capable of murder", i.e. "I didn't believe he could commit murder". The second parse is "being capable <at something", as in "be skilled <at something>". "I didn't think he was capable at murder" sounds weird and would mean "I didn't think he was very good at killing people", but you'd use it in something like "he was capable at math". The "patronizing" part was because "this is for people who are capable of German" sounds more condescending to me than "this is for people who can read German".
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > Basically, the two parses are different. I'm not convinced this is the case. Standard analysis would say that "capable of murder" parses as (capable (of (murder)), not ((capable of) (murder)). Assuming that analysis is correct, you have a prepositional phrase (with of) licensed by the adjective "capable" itself in specific, and a prepositional phrase (with at) licensed by the semantics of the adjective but not by "capable" specifically. Some examples of what I'm talking about: 1. "I believe in live-and-let-live." Here, the verb believe takes a complement that must be marked by in. An in-phrase with the same sense cannot be attached to other arbitrary verbs; it can appear here because it is licensed by believe. Invest also licenses an in-complement, with a meaning related to investing but unrelated to believing: "I prefer to invest in small companies". But "I affirm in live-and-let-live" is nonsensical despite being semantically very similar to "I believe in live-and-let-live". Affirm does not license such a complement. The adjective capable individually licenses an of-phrase in this manner. 2. "He ran to the park." Here, the phrase to the park is not licensed by the verb run. It is licensed by the semantics of running as a verb of motion, and can appear with the same sense attached to any motion verb: "He swam to the park"; "He ambled to the park"; "He somersaulted to the park"; etc. Capable licenses an at-phrase in this manner, just like good, skilled, adept, inept, competent, etc. 3. "The ceremony begins at 8:00." Here, at 8:00 is licensed by all verbs that exist now or might in the future. Semantically, it has nothing to do with the verb. The thing is, the parse tree you get for all of those cases is exactly the same. It's true that the of example is bound to capable more closely than the at example is, but the closeness doesn't lie in the parse tree, it lies in the level of generality at which the complement is licensed.