Means something/mean someone to do

[Anna232]

Is my use of the verb "mean" correct? Is the construction "they meant us to use" natural?

1. Low prices mean increasing in sales.
2. They meant us to use their phone.

 

[Tarheel]

The first one is wrong. Low (or lower) prices might lead to an increase in sales, but they don't "mean" that.

In the second one, "They meant us to" means that's what they intended for us to do.

 

[Anna232]

The first one is wrong. Low (or lower) prices might lead to an increase in sales, but they don't "mean" that.

I wrote this example based on what I often see here. If/as it does happen here, can I use it? Is "increasing" correct?

In the second one, "They meant us to" means that's what they intended for us to do.

Is it a natural sentence? I mean my second one.

 

[jutfrank]

1. Low prices mean increasing in sales.

Your use of 'mean' is good but the preposition 'in' shouldn't be there.

2. They meant us to use their phone.

If you made this up yourself, it's a very poor sentence to exemplify this sense of 'mean'. Can you make a better example?

 

[Anna232]

Your use of 'mean' is good but the preposition 'in' shouldn't be there.

Is it because "increasing in sales" isn't idiomatic but "increasing sales" is? It should be "Low prices mean increasing sales," "Low prices mean an increase in sales," or "Low prices lead to an increase in sales." Am I right?

If you made this up yourself, it's a very poor sentence to exemplify this sense of 'mean'.

Yes, I did.

Can you make a better example?

What about this one? The travel agent meant us to contact them upon our arrival.

 

[Anna232]

Your use of 'mean' is good but the preposition 'in' shouldn't be there.



If you made this up yourself, it's a very poor sentence to exemplify this sense of 'mean'. Can you make a better example?

Is it the wrong combination of "mean increasing in sales" that makes the original sentence wrong? The correct collocation is "mean an increase in" not "mean increasing in" if I understand correctly.

 

[Tarheel]

Low prices do not mean an increase in sales. It simply doesn't. You might reasonably expect sales to increase if you lower prices, but that's not the same thing. When you lower prices you can reasonably expect sales to increase.

 

[jutfrank]

Is it because "increasing in sales" isn't idiomatic but "increasing sales" is?

No, it's because the word 'in' is wrong.

I presume that by 'increasing sales', you're using 'increasing' to modify 'sales', as an adjective. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Is it the wrong combination of "mean increasing in sales" that makes the original sentence wrong? The correct collocation is "mean an increase in" not "mean increasing in" if I understand correctly.

No, that's not right. It's not at all about collocation. It's about being grammatical and making sense.

It should be "Low prices mean increasing sales," "Low prices mean an increase in sales," or "Low prices lead to an increase in sales." Am I right?

Right.

What about this one? The travel agent meant us to contact them upon our arrival.

That's still no good. Here are some much better examples:

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you.
Did he mean to score? Or was it just a fluke?
I don't mean to be rude but can you please shut up!

In all cases above, 'mean' is about intention. Is that what you're trying to express?

 

[Anna232]

No, it's because the word 'in' is wrong.

I presume that by 'increasing sales', you're using 'increasing' to modify 'sales', as an adjective. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Yes. It is clear to me now. It can only work as an adjective not as gerund/noun.

No, that's not right. It's not at all about collocation. It's about being grammatical and making sense.



Right.



That's still no good. Here are some much better examples:

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you.
Did he mean to score? Or was it just a fluke?
I don't mean to be rude but can you please shut up!

In all cases above, 'mean' is about intention. Is that what you're trying to express?

Yes. I was just trying to use the construction that OAD suggests. "Mean someone to do something."

• mean somebody/something to do something I didn't mean you to read the letter.

Sorry. I can't edit my post. I tried several times to type my comment under yours. It just doesn't work.

 

[jutfrank]

mean somebody/something to do something

Can you show us where exactly you saw this pattern? The pattern should include the word 'for':

mean for somebody to do something

 

[5jj]

Can you show us where exactly you saw this pattern? The pattern should include the word 'for':

mean for somebody to do something

I find it acceptable without 'for'.

 

[jutfrank]

I find it acceptable without 'for'.

I find it questionably acceptable but awkward and uncomfortable. I'd be interested to see which dictionaries list it without 'for' (Oxford doesn't) if anyone has time today to have a look.

 

[5jj]

• mean somebody/something to do something I didn't mean you to read the letter.

mean verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of mean verb in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

 

[Anna232]

Can you show us where exactly you saw this pattern? The pattern should include the word 'for':

mean for somebody to do something

It is from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/mean_1

My example is still wrong, isn't it? Does it depend on context? It seems the same construction can't be used in different contexts.

 

[5jj]

My example is still wrong, isn't it?

No.

This site has 1,949 examples of '... meant us to ...': https://www.english-corpora.org/googlebooks/x.asp

 

[jutfrank]

I'd be interested to see which dictionaries list it without 'for' (Oxford doesn't)

That was a mistake—I meant Cambridge doesn't, preferring 'for': https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mean.

My example is still wrong, isn't it?

I'd stop short of saying it's ungrammatical but yes, it's bad English in my book. You should include the preposition 'for'. The pattern without 'for' is relatively rare and will sound wrong to a lot of people.

mean for somebody to do something

 

[5jj]

The pattern without 'for' is relatively rare and will sound wrong to a lot of people.

What about the 1,949 examples I mentioned in post #15?

 

[jutfrank]

What about the 1,949 examples I mentioned in post #15?

I think that demonstrates my point that the version without 'for' is relatively rare.

By the way, your link doesn't go anywhere useful. Give me a minute and I'll provide links to some ngrams ...

 

[jutfrank]

This ngram, comparing mean you to/mean for you to gives a relative frequency ratio of 1:4

Google Books Ngram Viewer

Google Ngrams: mean you to, mean for you to, 1800-2022

books.google.com

Replacing 'you' with other pronouns gives lower ratios:

mean me to/mean for me to
mean him to/mean for him to

These two are both about 1:3

With 'her' it's about 1:5:

mean her to/mean for her to

Interestingly, using 'it' is quite different!:

mean it to/mean for it to

I can't explain that. Maybe it is about context after all.

 

[5jj]

I think that demonstrates my point that the version without 'for' is relatively rare.

Nearly 2000 example - 'relatively rare'?

By the way, your link doesn't go anywhere useful.

Sorry. I can't get the link working.