2

Consider:

The first layer might provide indemnification for losses between $50 million and $60 million, the next layer might cover losses between $60 million and $70 million.

I think "for" here fits the 3rd definition (concerning someone or something) in OALD.

The most obvious risk for an insurance company is that the policy reserves are not sufficient to meet the claims of policyholders.

I think "for" here fits the 12th definition (used after some nouns, adjectives, or verbs in order to introduce more information or to indicate what a quality, thing, or action relates to.) in Collins.

The European Union is working on Solvency II which assigns capital for a wider set of risks than Solvency I.

I think "for" here fits the 1st definition (used to show who is intended to have or use something or where something is intended to be put) in OALD.

However, I wonder why sometimes to is used instead. You don't need to explain by using simple examples like "give/sing/explain sth to sb", or "get/buy/bring sth for sb" because I think "for" here does not fall into this category.

Sometimes pensions are adjusted for inflation. This is known as indexation.

I think "for" here fits the 9th definition (used to show a reason or cause) in OALD.

Defined contribution plans involve very little risk for employers.

I think "for" here fits the 8th definition (used when you make a statement about something in order to say how it affects or relates to someone, or what their attitude to it is.) in Collins.

A combination of negative equity returns and declining interest rates is a nightmare for all managers of defined benefit plans. This combination created a “perfect storm” for defined benefit pension plans.

I think the first "for" fits the 8th definition to say how it affects sb, and the second also fits this to say how it affects sth.

I quote these examples from Risk Management and Financial Institutions, 3rd Ed. written by John Hull.

Am I correct in understanding all the "for" above? Plz go through them one by one.

I have got the designation of Financial Risk Manager, so you don't need to explain any financial terms to me.

Kinzle B
  • 7,105
  • 27
  • 87
  • 143
  • too broad this is. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for – Maulik V Mar 18 '14 at 11:36
  • I can't match these definitions with my examples, so I open a queation. I don't think it's broad since I have added examples here. This question has confused me for a long time. @Maulik V – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 11:40
  • http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=for and many such dictionaries. As you stated that you looked into OALD, I'm just suggesting to refer other books as well - Collins, McMillian, Merriam-Webster, WordWeb and so on. – Maulik V Mar 18 '14 at 11:46
  • I know these are not problems for you as a native speaker. Dictionaries can only help you to a certain degree. I wouldn't ask here if dictionaries could explain everything. Btw, I like studying these little words because I think it's interesting just like other senior forum leaders here do. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 11:53
  • Okay. try to understand this - of is a possessive word, which means something belongs to something. On the other hand, for is used for several reasons, one being appropriate/beneficial to. Think this way... for you and of you - you'll have a clear idea. of here would suggest that something belongs to you whereas for would be for you. A leg of yours means your leg whereas A leg for you would mean a synthetic leg for you! And above all, I'm not a native speaker. I'm just a learner. :) – Maulik V Mar 18 '14 at 12:03
  • 1
    'A leg for you' might also mean a chicken leg that you are supposed to eat. :P – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:05
  • At least India is an English-speaking country. Not that simple. I knew what you said, but in some cases I'm afraid your rule could not apply. e.g. fear of dark, record for 100-meter race etc. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 12:11
  • 'Of' and 'For' are quite distinct. You should check phrasal verbs, that is verb+preposition combinations. Different combinations give different meanings. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:20
  • http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-of-and-for/ . This might help you clear your confusion regardin 'of' and 'for'. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:25
  • 2
    @Zhanlong Zheng This is an excellent question, and it is great that you have provided examples. But I also think that this question is "too broad" - which just means that answers will be too long and, given the number of examples, akin to answering several questions at once. Could you ask about which dictionary definitions or for as [x] type of word you have trouble understanding, rather than asking what "for" is/means in examples? – nxx Mar 18 '14 at 19:08
  • I have updated my question. Plz lift the hold. @StoneyB – Kinzle B Mar 22 '14 at 04:11
  • @ZhanlongZheng It is still too broad, in my opinion. I agree with what nxx said. You might consider two approaches to resolve this "too broad" issue. Either break them up into smaller questions; maybe one question for one of each "for" example sentence above. And/or add the definition of "for" given in dictionaries you think is closest to the meaning of "for" used in each of those sentences, as nxx suggested. – Damkerng T. Mar 22 '14 at 04:31
  • This will do, I think. Or perhaps I should split it into several questions. What do you think? @Damkerng T. – Kinzle B Mar 22 '14 at 05:22
  • @ZhanlongZheng If I were you, I'd keep it one case one question. (I usually like it short, by the way. I think short questions and short answers are easier to read. :-) I also got tricked by you to look up the word "for" in OALD, and I think if I had to choose, I'd choose these: might provide indemnification for losses ~ sense 1; The most obvious risk for an insurance company ~ sense 3; The most obvious risk for an insurance company ~ sense 1. As for "for" vs. "to", I'd like to recommend this answer: http://ell.stackexchange.com/a/7188/3281. – Damkerng T. Mar 22 '14 at 09:15
  • I have split this question. Just close it. – Kinzle B Mar 22 '14 at 14:49

1 Answers1

0

This problem creates a complication for actuaries and accountants.

Here, for relates the problem to the actuaries and accountants. It acts like a prepositon, and like a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception. Here for qualifies the noun as it is a preposition here.

The example shows calculation of operating ratio for a property-casualty insurance company.

Here, for tells us that the operating ratio is directed towards the insurance company. Again being a preposition, it qualifies the noun.

In the United States, health insurance has been an important consideration for most people.

Here, for acts in a similar way to the first one, pointing towards the recipient of the perception.

The first layer might provide indemnification for losses between $50 million and $60 million, the next layer might cover losses between $60 million and $70 million.

Here, for tells us that the 'indemnification' (not quite sure what that means) is directed towards the losses. As above, here too, it is a preposition.

The balance sheets for life insurance and property-casualty insurance companies are different.

*For acts similar to the above case.

The most obvious risk for an insurance company is that the policy reserves are not sufficient to meet the claims of policyholders.

For acts as in the first case.

The European Union is working on Solvency II which assigns capital for a wider set of risks than Solvency I.

Here, *for acts as in the fourth case.

Sometimes pensions are adjusted for inflation. This is known as indexation.

Here adjusted for is a phrasal verb. ( A verb+preposition combination.) So here, for qualifies the verb.

Defined contribution plans involve very little risk for employer.

As in the first case.

A combination of negative equity returns and declining interest rates is a nightmare for all managers of defined benefit plans.

Similar to the first case.

This combination created a “perfect storm” for defined benefit pension plans.

Here, the meaning depends on the context. I take it to mean "in favour of".

I've tried to explain things the best I could, from my point of view, which may not be right sometimes.

No, in these sentence for cannot be replaced by 'of'. Only when for describes a fraction as 'three for four days' can it be replaced by 'of' .

Adil Ali
  • 710
  • 6
  • 13
  • Thx, some of your explanations enlighten me, but some are obviously wrong. I guess that you don't fully understand what some examples try to say because of the financial subject. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 12:30
  • Yes, a little bit more context would help here. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:31
  • By the way, which of these do you think must be wrong? – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:32
  • The last one should also mean "be recipient". The combination bring trouble to the plan. And I don't think "adjusted for" is a phrasal verb. Like, the company can adjust income for CPI. I think "for" here is similar to "according to", but there is no such usage for "for". And in some cases the "for" phrase can qualify the verb and makes sense as well. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 12:45
  • Of course it can. Like in the sentence, "I have been waiting for years." , for acts like the adverb of time. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:11
  • you misunderstood me. Take the first sentence for example, "for" there can share the same usage as in "You bought a book for me", so it does not necessarily qualify the noun in the first example like you said. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 13:16
  • 1
    For is a preposition in this case. Wikipedia says: "The word preposition comes from Latin, a language in which such a word is usually placed before its complement. (Thus it is pre-positioned.) English is another such language." So in English, the preposition complents the word after it. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:20
  • In all these cases "for" act as prep, but what I am saying is "for + noun“ phrases can function diffenrently in each case. Being a prep can also qualify the verb because it could be an adverbial phrase! – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 13:24
  • 1
    'For' can be an adverbial clause in relation to time and space only. In other words it becomes a prepostition of space and time. and then it qualifies *both* the noun and verb. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepositional_adverb. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:26
  • Here come examples: 1.How much did you get for your car? 2.He came to me for advice. 3.She's tall for her age. Adverbial phrases but not relate to time and space. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 13:31
  • I am talking about "for+noun" as a whole, not just a single "for". – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 13:34
  • How is the 1. examples for adverbial clauses ? – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:35
  • There are five types of adverbial clauses. (a) Reason Because Marianne loved Willoughby, she refused to believe that he had deserted her. (b) Time When Fanny returned, she found Tom Bertram very ill. (c) Concession Although Mr D'Arcy disliked Mrs Bennet he married Elizabeth. (d) Manner Henry changed his plans as the mood took him. (e) Condition If Emma had left Hartfield, Mr Woodhouse would have been unhappy. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:36
  • In my first example "for actuaries and accountants" can also be thought to qualify "create", I think. It's phrase that I am talking about, not clause. We are not even talking about the same thing. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 13:36
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:37