For good reason

[Rachel Adams]

Can I use the expression "for good reason" in this way in my sentence?

"Many people associate Georgia with mountains and for good reason, because it's the mountains that are the hallmark of Georgia. For example, Mount Kazbek is the most famous and favourite mountain for me and many tourists. It is rich in beautiful landscapes regardless of the time of year. It's top is often hidden by clouds."

I again provided the rest of the context to show how I was going to use my sentence.

 

[5jj]

"Many people associate Georgia with mountains and for good reason, because it's the mountains that are the hallmark of Georgia.

It would be OK if you stopped after 'reason'. As it is, your sentence says Many people associate Georgia with mountains because it's famous for its mountains.

 

[Rachel Adams]

"Many people associate Georgia with mountains and for good reason, because it's the mountains that are the hallmark of Georgia. /QUOTE]
It would be OK if you stopped after 'reason'. As it is, your sentence says Many people associate Georgia with mountains because it's famous for its mountains.

"Because it's the mountains that are the hallmark of Georgia" is repetition, isn't it?
Is the rest of the text correct?

 

[Tarheel]

"Because it's the mountains that are the hallmark of Georgia" is repetitious, isn't it?

Yes, a bit.

Is the rest of the text correct?

See post #5.

 

[Tarheel]

Can I use the expression "for good reason" in this way in my sentence?

"Many people associate Georgia with mountains and for good reason. For example, Mount Kazbek is the most famous and favourite mountain for me and for many tourists. It is rich in beautiful landscapes regardless of the time of year. Its top is often hidden by clouds."

Try that!

 

[Rachel Adams]

Try that!

Thank you. So native speakers of English don't use "with" instead of "by" in such contexts. "The walls are covered by clouds" not "with clouds" and "the walls are covered by snow" not "with snow." Do I understand correctly?

 

[GoesStation]

So native speakers of English don't use "with" instead of "by" in such contexts. "The walls are covered by clouds" not "with clouds" and "the walls are covered by snow" not "with snow." Do I understand correctly?

No. Sentence one doesn't make sense. "With snow" is more likely in sentence two, but "by" is also possible.

 

[Rachel Adams]

No. Sentence one doesn't make sense. "With snow" is more likely in sentence two, but "by" is also possible.

Oh, I typed "clouds" instead of "snow". Sorry. In this sentence "the top of the mountain is covered by clouds" or "with clouds" the use of the preposition is the same, isn't it? Both are correct.

 

[GoesStation]

In this sentence, "the top of the mountain is covered by clouds" or "with clouds", the use of the preposition is the same, isn't it?

I don't understand the question. I wouldn't use "covered"; I'd say its hidden by clouds.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I don't understand the question. I wouldn't use "covered"; I'd say its hidden by clouds.

I didn't know that "is covered by clouds" is wrong. Or is it your personal preference?

In a similar context would it be wrong to use "covered" when talking about "the fog"?
For example, "the church on the top of the hill was covered by/with fog?" or is it better to say "the church on the top of the hill is hidden by/with fog"?

 

[GoesStation]

I didn't know that "is covered by clouds" is wrong. Or is it your personal preference?

In a similar context would it be wrong to use "covered" when talking about "the fog"?
For example, "the church on the top of the hill was covered by/with fog?" or is it better to say "the church on the top of the hill is hidden by/with fog"?

"Covered" is better for cases where a more substantial material physically obscures something. For example: The driveway was covered with fallen leaves. Fog and clouds are insubstantial; they can hide something, but we don't usually think of them as covering it.

 

[Rachel Adams]

"Covered" is better for cases where a more substantial material physically obscures something. For example: The driveway was covered with fallen leaves. Fog and clouds are insubstantial; they can hide something, but we don't usually think of them as covering it.

I see now. Thank you. In your example "covered with fallen leaves", "covered by" would also work as it works in "covered "with/by snow". Right?

 

[GoesStation]

I see now. Thank you. In your example "covered with fallen leaves", "covered by" would also work as it works in "covered "with/by snow". Right?

"With" works better. You could, however, say it was "covered by a blanket of fallen leaves." "By" goes well with a definable item; "with" is suitable for a more diffuse, less well defined substance. I'm kind of shooting in the dark with that last bit (look up the idiom if it's not familiar to you). Jutfrank may have more to say about it.

 

[Rachel Adams]

"with" is suitable for a more diffuse, less well defined substance. .

But it doesn't work with "fog" in the way I used it in my sentence "covered by/with fog". It should be "hidden by". Or perhaps it's possible to use less defined substance such as "fog" with "with" in another sentence without using "covered by"?:shock:

 

[Tarheel]

You could say something is shrouded by fog.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

You could say something is shrouded by fog.

Or shrouded IN fog.

 

[probus]

I didn't know that "is covered by clouds" is wrong

It isn't wrong. It's just less natural than some alternatives.