Yet another academic issue?

[Gość: sisi]

How do you people choose the right preposition here:
- find work at Toyo
- find work with Toyo
- find work in Toyo
- find work for Toyo

:)

[Gość: Bert]

That's a tall order, not academic at all. Sisi, you are a
mistress of ambiguity.

The prepositions may be associated with "finding" (the
activity of searching) or with "work" (employment). The
sentence should clarify the situation.
If the sentence is about searching for work the
preposition would "belong" to the verb "find".
E.g., Toyo is unemployed; we have to find work for Toyo.
If the sentence is not about searching the proposition
that "work" imposes would rule:
E.g., I find work for Toyo most satisfying.
Are you with me?

My humble advice would be: try not to say too much in one
sentence.
Sisi, what was your question?

[Gość: Rev. Reverend]

I think Bert missed it.
I assume that Toyo is an employer.

Sisi have found work at Toyo.
Sisi works for Toyo.
If Toyo is a store or restaurant then Sisi works at Toyo.
Sisi finds working with Toyo to be very exciting. ( in case Toyo is a
co-worker or a partner ).

That's as much as I know. Later, I'll ask my daughter, she knows better.

[Gość: Bert]

No, you missed the point.

[Gość: sisi]

Rev, bullseye!

[Gość: sisi]

;-)
He managed to find work ... Toyo.
Toyo = name of a company (no place, no first name)

[Gość: Bert]

Gość portalu: sisi napisał:

> ;-)
> He managed to find work ... Toyo.
> Toyo = name of a company (no place, no first name)


I am fully aware of what Toyo is. I gave you a hint as to
how to sort out the prepositions.
You must know what you want to say.

Even in the simple example about the bank (your case is
more complicated than that, you have both "finding" and
"work") "working in a bank" is not the same as "working
for a bank"

[Gość: sisi]

Bert, thanks for showing the tracks for me. I mean, your efforts. I appreciate
it.
Then again, I know what I want to say. I wonder how people tell differences.
Like here:
X plays for Manchester United.
X plays at/in Manchester United.
I'd say FOR, but I never know how to substantiate my denial to accept IN or AT.

This example is easy to make the point.

[Gość: Bert]

Using examples I can try to tell you what the ones you
listed mean to ME. Here Toyo means the employer.
Those are my impressions. I may be exaggerating the
differences a bit – I want to show the subtleties.
I am playing with the prepositions only.


find work at Toyo (a look from a distance)
-I found work at Toyo. Toyo is one of many companies (in
my area? that were willing to hire me? I was interested
in?). Toyo is a point/location/address on the employment
map. It is cold, unemotional, and formally proper.

find work with Toyo
-I found work with Toyo. I became a Toyo employee, a Toyo
coworker. They give me employment. They are my shelter.
I'd rather say: "I am with Toyo" after getting the job.
The slight connotation is they take care of me. I am
happy becouse of that.
-the same as "find work at Toyo". "At" is better in the
sense that it is more neutral.

find work in Toyo (I am focused on this company)
-Layoffs are coming our way; I have got to find real work
in Toyo so that I am considered an essential Toyo employee.
-I know that (my favorite, well-defined...) kind of
work I will be able to find in (at)Toyo.
-My friend who works for Toyo helped me find work in
Toyo. He knew about an opening or created a position for me.

find work for Toyo
-the same as "find work at Toyo" (vague, and you know
why, "at" is much better,)
-I am determined to find work for Toyo because Toyo is my
beloved company (very clumsy, vague crap, can mean other
things)


X plays for Manchester United = he plays for the club,
club's well-being is important for him, the paycheck is
for services rendered.
X plays at/in Manchester United = it is his mailing address.

N.B. If I were writing my resume I wouldn't combine
"finding" with "work" in this way.
Most likely, I wouldn't use "find work" in my resume at all.

[Gość: nat]

Bert, in my humble opinion (and that's a first) you are reading far too much
into it. It's not poetry but simple everyday language.
I see it like that:
I work in Marks & Spencer (ie on the shop floor).
I work for BBC (ie white collar/office/creative type of work at BBC)
I am with Golman Sachs (ie work for the company in a professional capacity, not
secretarial/cleaning etc).

I think the differences are very subtle but they do reflect the position/status
involved. Then again, in modern usage not many people would bother to think
about it. Something for linguitic purists to contemplate. Sisi, you clearly
fall into that category. Best of luck.

[Gość: sisi]

It's just what I lack sometimes.
You know, people need to be reassured every now and then. Otherwise they doubt
too much.
Bert & Nat - you people make visiting a forum like this worthwhile.
Rgds

[Gość: Bert]

Perhaps I am being a nitpicker. The main point in the
"finding work...Toyo" business that I am trying to make
is the "prepositional conflict of interest". It is purely
a grammatical issue; the verb "find" has the right to its
preposition, and the object ("work") of "find" may claim
its own.
Were it a question of selecting the preposition for the
verb only, the choice would be easier:
"work for Toyo", or "work at Toyo", or "work in Toyo",
"work with Toyo".
As soon as we put the verb "find" in front of "work", a
complication pops up. The verb's preposition messes up
the meaning of the resultant phrase pretty nicely.
It is most visible in the case of "find {work for Toyo}"
= "find work for Toyo". That means Toyo is unemployed,
and I don't care who reads it. My conclusion is that it
is the verb, the external guy, whose preposition takes
over. If so, we can substitute XXX for "work", drop
"work's" preposition, and allow the verb to have its way,
making our lives simpler as far as grammar goes:
find XXX in London, find XXX at Hampton, find XXX with
Toyo, find XXX at Toyo, find work in Toyo, but never find
XXX for Toyo for obvious reasons.
The choices of the prepositions are dictated by the
requirements of the verb "find", and are dependent on the
point of view. For a globalist sitting on the moon "at"
might do. A New Yorker trying to find a job locally would
find work in New York, etc.

Nat's examples are about WORKING for, in, at, with. My
earlier "impressions" are about FINDING WORK in, at,
with, i.e., about the process of finding/searching. I
think there is a slight difference there, or I am a
nitpicker.

[Gość: nat]

Thanks Sisi.Like reading your entries too. I often cringe at the grammatical
mistakes made by the most native of the native speakers, but they are not
bothered at all. In fact, they are blissfully unaware of their linguistic
defficiency, probably because grammar has not been taught at English schools
for some 40 years now. Prepositions, adverbs, clauses etc are alien terms to
most. The result is, that although my pronunciacion will always reveal my
foreign origin to some extend, I find myself writing CVs and job application
letters for my English friends' 16 year old daughter, because they believe I
can do it better. But then, they say things like 'Pass me THEM books' and argue
it is correct English.

Bert comes through as a rather clever chap, though at times too intricate for
me. Worth reading nevertheless.
And to the Reverend, don't worry rev, nobody will say a boo to you at this
festive time of the year. Regards all round.

[Gość: Rev. Reverend]

Once again they will throw darts at moi. Ay vay.

[Gość: chickenShorts]

Gość portalu: Rev. Reverend napisał(a):

> Once again they will throw darts at moi. Ay vay.<

Good Lord, Rev! How are you coping with that family of names?
Look at erwas -
one name and the family behind it, one day himself, another - his wife, I think
I even detected his daughter once or twice...

Please..............

[Gość: Rev. Reverend]

I used two nick names before. Those were 'wacko jacko' and 'Mgr. Wypych.'
Since I have changed it to 'Rev. Reverend'. Please note that the full nickname
is Reverend Reverend Reverend. Have you read "Catch 22" ? If so, there was a
character by the name Major Major Major.
Danke schoen.

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: chickenShorts napisał(a):

> Gość portalu: Rev. Reverend napisał(a):
>
> > Once again they will throw darts at moi. Ay vay.<
>
> Good Lord, Rev! How are you coping with that family of names?
> Look at erwas -
> one name and the family behind it, one day himself, another - his wife, I
think
>
> I even detected his daughter once or twice...

the main light in the room is the monitor. outside, the grotesque giggling of
cayotes and the discreet murmur of lions and bears swirls in the desert wind.
inside, the room is silent. three figures lean in and out of the flickering
screen-saver shadows, each tensed to reach the keyboard in a single, athletic
bound.

as wave after wave of hot air, abrasive red sand, and soul-splittin' sound
carrying garden furniture, embarrassed and slightly alarmed eagles, and gushes
of sardonic laughter with trilly bits on the edges slams itself against the
sides of our mud-hut, first in a steady pulse, but now rising and rising
through irriversible surges to a never before even most piously wet-dreamed of
crescendo, the three figures in the room slowly stiffen and exchange sudden,
searing/searching glances.

...who is going to be erwas tonight?

erwas ( )

[Gość: chickenShorts]

Well? Who won? Did you risk the last dime by tossing it? Which were you,
heads or tails?

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: chickenShorts napisał(a):

>
> Well? Who won? Did you risk the last dime by tossing it? Which were you,
> heads or tails?

I won.
heads and tails.

[Gość: nat]

Sisi, have you noticed how your simple and to the point topic has been
kidnapped by a bunch of weirdos who say absolutely nothing in an astonishing
multitude of words? Is is a result of abstract existence or immense solitude?
Where is dr shrink when so badly needed????????

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: nat napisał(a):

> Sisi, have you noticed how your simple and to the point topic has been
> kidnapped by a bunch of weirdos who say absolutely nothing in an astonishing
> multitude of words?

ah, jumbled babble to some, the rapture of meaning to others

[Gość: chickenShorts]

> Gość portalu: nat napisał(a):

I am so sorry, nat & sisi, that your

> to the point topic has been
> kidnapped by a bunch of weirdos who say absolutely nothing

to the point! Rev. killed it by being precisely to the point about half way
back, I believe.

nat showing energy again... recharged batteries? Good... good...

[Gość: nat]

Rapture it is indeed - in the celebral spheres ... somewhere. Nothing wrong
with my energy level either - just wish there was somewhere on this forum to
put it to good use. As it is - I give up, for now anyway.

[Gość: sisi]

I have.
:)
Not that I have anything against. For some people a forum makes a feed pipe,
for others it's a drain ;-))))
So, down with it - erm, I mean WYŚLIJ...