2

Consider:

Defined contribution plans involve very little risk for employers.

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

Sometimes, the extreme market moves are measured in standard deviations, as was the case for our exchange rate example.

An analyst could then search to find what multiplier must be applied to the changes observed in the past for a particular loss level to be reached.

A bank should enhance its stress-testing approaches for its highly leveraged counterparties.

Financial institutions should ensure that their capital will be in good shape not just for the specified scenarios, but also for other similar or related scenarios.

Unfortunately human beings are not good at estimating a probability for the occurrence of a rare event.

-- Risk Management and Financial Institutions, 3rd Ed. written by John Hull.

Does "for" in these examples fit the 3rd definition (concerning someone or something) in the OALD?

And are these "for + nouns" adverbial or attributive?

Please help walk me through them.

2
+50

I'll make an attempt to rewrite each of your sentences without using for:

Defined contribution plans involve very little risk with respect to employers.

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

Sometimes, the extreme market moves are measured in standard deviations, as was the case with the example that concerned our exchange rate.

An analyst could then search to find what multiplier must be applied to the changes observed in the past that would cause a particular loss level to be reached.

A bank should enhance those stress-testing approaches which concern its highly leveraged counterparties.

Financial institutions should ensure that their capital will be in good shape not just as they relate to the specified scenarios, but also for other similar or related scenarios.

Unfortunately human beings are not good at estimating a probability of the likelihood of the occurrence of a rare event.

Based on this exercise, I would say the answer to your question is yes.

  • I think some of your rephrasing are just semantically valid, but not grammatically valid. They could share a similar meaning just because they happen to. A different sentence with the same pattern might not work in your way. – Kinzle B Jul 25 '14 at 14:33
  • 1
    My intent in going to the trouble of writing all of these was to show grammatically correct sentences (which each of them are) that demonstrate the use of the word for to mean concerning something or someone as the OALD has it. I believe that my demonstration is compelling. One may always argue that a conclusion drawn on a simple preponderance of evidence is invalid because it could be nothing more than coincidence. However, the more evidence there is, the weaker the argument of coincidence becomes. (more) – BobRodes Jul 26 '14 at 21:31
  • For example, the more times that water comes through your apartment ceiling when the person upstairs takes a shower, the harder it is to argue that the juxtaposition of these events is unrelated and due to coincidence. So, if you are unconvinced of the OALD's definition, I encourage you to continue your research and see if you can find evidence of usage that runs contrary to it. I believe I have shown (and quite effectively, if I may say so) how the sentences you provide support the definition. – BobRodes Jul 26 '14 at 21:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.