0

Is there anything semantically odd about the following sentence? I'm particularly interested in the compatibility between the subject the rich man and the predicate allocated funds to the charity.

The rich man allocated funds to the charity.

8
  • Why allocated? The rich man gave money to charity. The rich man funded the charity. We don't say allocate funds to charity in this context. A company would allocate funds to specific projects, for example.
    – Lambie
    Mar 15 '18 at 15:41
  • 1
    Allocate is like setting aside, if they changed the preposition to for, this sentence would make perfect sense. The rich man allocated(set aside) funds for the charity. Glad I read your comment, though. I posted a reply that said this made sense, because my brain automatically inserted the word *for instead of to
    – Element115
    Mar 15 '18 at 15:43
  • What if it was the rich man's charity, for example a private foundation? Then to would be OK. Mar 15 '18 at 15:56
  • That's true, I didn't consider that. I guess it's possible this sentence made perfect sense in context in that case.
    – Element115
    Mar 15 '18 at 16:15
  • Do you mean the man donated/gave some of his money to the charity?
    – Victor B.
    Mar 15 '18 at 22:10
0

The one who allocates has the authority to allot (see what that means) fund, funding, money, charity, or whatever it may be. A reach man can do it, so he's capable of doing it. I think it does fit what you mean by

the compatibility between the subject the rich man and the predicate allocated funds to the charity

In addition:

The verb "to allocate" also collocates with the preposition "for"-- as Element115 has noted, thanks to them--the use of the prepositions, the example sentences see here, if you please.

1
  • But "a rich man" is not a term that denotes authority; words like "government," "mayor," "committee," "dean" do. That's why I suspect "a rich man" does not fit in well with the verb "allocate."
    – Apollyon
    Mar 16 '18 at 14:22
0

There's a nuance of meaning here. If the rich man gave funds to the charity, the charity has the funds. If the rich man allocated them the funds, that means that he set aside money to give to the charity, but may or may not have given the money to the charity yet.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .