I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
On 14/05/2026 04:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. It seems to me
you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming, as
well as 'for' something. Do you have much dealings with the devil these
days?
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
Le 14/05/2026 |a 10:27, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 04:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? content=advocate+this%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_gb%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3>
In modern English, it's 'preposition bloat'.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. It seems to me
you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming,-a as
well as 'for' something.-a Do you have much dealings with the devil these
-a days?
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
Le 14/05/2026 a 10:27, occam a ocrit :
On 14/05/2026 04:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=advocate+this%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_gb%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3>
In modern English, it's 'preposition bloat'.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. It seems to me
you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming, as
well as 'for' something. Do you have much dealings with the devil these
days?
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment.
It seems to me
you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming,
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate
against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction >should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
On 14/05/2026 12:54, Hibou wrote:
Le 14/05/2026 |a 10:27, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 04:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=advocate+this%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_gb%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3>
In modern English, it's 'preposition bloat'.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. It seems to me >>> you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming,-a as
well as 'for' something.-a Do you have much dealings with the devil these >>> -a days?
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend
publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
That would be OK if 'to advocate' was the opposite of 'to oppose'.
'He advocated against the law for abortion' is an active thing - it
means you put a case against it by supporting (or recommending) it publicly
Le 14/05/2026 |a 11:54, Hibou a |-crit :
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
-a He advocated votes for women.
-a He opposed votes for women.
On Thu, 14 May 2026 08:45:24 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate >against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction >should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
What's wrong with "He protested his innocence"?
On Thu, 14 May 2026 17:51:27 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 12:54, Hibou wrote:
Le 14/05/2026 |a 10:27, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 04:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an >>>>> instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=advocate+this%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_gb%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3>
In modern English, it's 'preposition bloat'.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. It seems to me >>>> you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming,-a as >>>> well as 'for' something.-a Do you have much dealings with the devil these >>>> -a days?
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend
publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
That would be OK if 'to advocate' was the opposite of 'to oppose'.
'He advocated against the law for abortion' is an active thing - it
means you put a case against it by supporting (or recommending) it publicly
Is "advocate against" widespread usage?
I've not come across it in the wild, only in this thread.
Hibou wrote on 5/14/2026 :
Le 14/05/2026 |a 10:27, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 04:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
Comments?
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=advocate+this%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_gb%2Cadvocate+for+this%3Aeng_us&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3>
In modern English, it's 'preposition bloat'.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment. It seems to me >>> you can advocate 'against' something e.g. slavery, global warming,-a as
well as 'for' something.-a Do you have much dealings with the devil these >>> -a days?
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or
recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem,
then, that one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to
oppose' it.
GNgram suggests that "advocate for" was common 200 years ago, disappered
for 120 years, and has made a strong comeback.-a Perhaps you picked up
the "musty old Collins" by mistake.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction >>should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
What's wrong with "He protested his innocence"?
On 14/05/2026 21:02, Snidely wrote:
Hibou wrote on 5/14/2026 :
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or
recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem,
then, that one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to
oppose' it.
GNgram suggests that "advocate for" was common 200 years ago, disappered
for 120 years, and has made a strong comeback.-a Perhaps you picked up
the "musty old Collins" by mistake.
More telling however is that 'advocate for' is far more common than just
'to advocate' :
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=advocate+against%2Cadvocate+for%2C+to+advocate%2C+an+advocate&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
On Thu, 14 May 2026 08:45:24 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate >against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction >should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
What's wrong with "He protested his innocence"?
More telling however is that 'advocate for' is far more common than just
'to advocate' :
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=advocate+against%2Cadvocate+for%2C+to+advocate%2C+an+advocate&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
Le 15/05/2026 |a 11:40, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 21:02, Snidely wrote:
Hibou wrote on 5/14/2026 :
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or
recommend publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem,
then, that one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to
oppose' it.
GNgram suggests that "advocate for" was common 200 years ago, disappered >>> for 120 years, and has made a strong comeback.-a Perhaps you picked up
the "musty old Collins" by mistake.
No mistake. It's on the PC and handier - and the current edition has the >same definition:
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/advocate>
More telling however is that 'advocate for' is far more common than just
'to advocate' :
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=advocate+against%2Cadvocate+for%2C+to+advocate%2C+an+advocate&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
But but oranges and apples! 'Advocate for', the conjugated verb plus >preposition, may well be commoner than the infinitive (one should
compare it to 'advocate', which admittedly isn't easy) and - ce qui plus
est - 'advocate for' includes both noun and verb (an/the 'advocate for'
a cause/a person). Think of all those Scottish lawyers who are advocates.
On 14/05/2026 12:54, Hibou wrote:
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend
publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
That would be OK if 'to advocate' was the opposite of 'to oppose'.
'He advocated against the law for abortion' is an active thing - it
means you put a case against it by supporting (or recommending) it publicly
'He opposed the law for abortion' could be a passive thing - you just
vote 'no'. End of story.
Hibou wrote:
But but oranges and apples! 'Advocate for', the conjugated verb plus
preposition, may well be commoner than the infinitive (one should
compare it to 'advocate', which admittedly isn't easy) and - ce qui plus
est - 'advocate for' includes both noun and verb (an/the 'advocate for'
a cause/a person). Think of all those Scottish lawyers who are advocates.
Yes, perhaps one should compare "to advocate" with "to advocate for".
Searching for "advocate for" on its own would pick up "advocate for
the defence" which is acceptable usage.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2026 08:45:24 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate
against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction
should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
What's wrong with "He protested his innocence"?
He could be protesting for or against his innocence (i.e. complaining
that no one had ever explained something to him). It is the context
that makes this unlikely but the words are unclear. "He protested that
he was innocent" would be clearer.
Le 14/05/2026 |a 16:51, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 12:54, Hibou wrote:
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend
publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
That would be OK if 'to advocate' was the opposite of 'to oppose'.
'He advocated against the law for abortion' is an active thing - it
means you put a case against it by supporting (or recommending) it
publicly
'He opposed the law for abortion' could be a passive thing - you just
vote 'no'. End of story.
'To advocate' has a number of antonyms: to oppose, to resist, to combat,
to criticise, to condemn, to denounce, to dissuade, to discouragerCa. (Hurrah for English vocabulary!)
In this graphrCa
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? content=advocated+against%3Aeng_us%2Cadvocated+against%3Aeng_gb&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false>
rCa there is a big rise in 'advocated against' from about 2000. Why is
this? Are people doing more of it? I doubt it. So how was the idea
expressed before 2000? Did people find the above antonyms sufficient?
'To advocate against' is a barbarism, nonsensical and unnecessary.
On 16/05/2026 06:34, Hibou wrote:
'To advocate against' is a barbarism, nonsensical and unnecessary.
in Scotland, an "Advocate" is someone the English would call-a a "Barrister".
Le 16/05/2026 |a 06:22, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Hibou wrote:
Yes, perhaps one should compare "to advocate" with "to advocate for".
But but oranges and apples! 'Advocate for', the conjugated verb plus
preposition, may well be commoner than the infinitive (one should
compare it to 'advocate', which admittedly isn't easy) and - ce qui plus >>> est - 'advocate for' includes both noun and verb (an/the 'advocate for'
a cause/a person). Think of all those Scottish lawyers who are advocates. >>
Searching for "advocate for" on its own would pick up "advocate for
the defence" which is acceptable usage.
Slightly sooner said than done:
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+advocate%2Cto+advocate+for%2Cto+advocate+against%2Cto+advocate+_ADP_&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
(_ADP_ An adposition: either a preposition or a postposition.)
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate
against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
Le 14/05/2026 |a 16:51, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 12:54, Hibou wrote:
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend
publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
That would be OK if 'to advocate' was the opposite of 'to oppose'.
'He advocated against the law for abortion' is an active thing - it
means you put a case against it by supporting (or recommending) it
publicly
'He opposed the law for abortion' could be a passive thing - you just
vote 'no'. End of story.
'To advocate' has a number of antonyms: to oppose, to resist, to combat,
to criticise, to condemn, to denounce, to dissuade, to discouragerCa. (Hurrah for English vocabulary!)
In this graphrCa
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? content=advocated+against%3Aeng_us%2Cadvocated+against%3Aeng_gb&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false>
rCa there is a big rise in 'advocated against' from about 2000. Why is
this? Are people doing more of it? I doubt it. So how was the idea
expressed before 2000? Did people find the above antonyms sufficient?
'To advocate against' is a barbarism, nonsensical and unnecessary.
Here we have the original use of the word in English:
someone who puts a case on behalf of someone.
I've been seeing "asvocate for" [advocate -- ant] with
increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for",
regarding it as an instance of preposition bloat.
On 16/05/2026 06:34, Hibou wrote:
rCa there is a big rise in 'advocated against' from about 2000. Why is
this? Are people doing more of it? I doubt it. So how was the idea
expressed before 2000? Did people find the above antonyms sufficient?
'To advocate against' is a barbarism, nonsensical and unnecessary.
It just needs a different construction (e.g.)
'To advocate the abolition of Slavery.'
(Rather than advocate against Slavery.)
Richard Tobin:
Here we have the original use of the word in English:
someone who puts a case on behalf of someone.
and the original Latin meaning, which I conjecture to be:
to speak in and on behalf of
Steve Hayes:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" [advocate -- ant] with
increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for",
regarding it as an instance of preposition bloat.
I don't think so. The prepostion seems to amplify the
meanaing, making it more active, outreachng, extrovert. Of
course, /advocate for/ hardly ever applies to a person.
On 14/05/2026 08:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate
against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction
should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
I'm with you on "advocate for" and "advocate against".
On 16/05/2026 06:34, Hibou wrote:
Le 14/05/2026 |a 16:51, occam a |-crit :
On 14/05/2026 12:54, Hibou wrote:
My trusty old Collins defines 'to advocate' as "to support or recommend >>>> publicly; plead for or speak in favour of." It would seem, then, that
one cannot advocate against something. One would have 'to oppose' it.
That would be OK if 'to advocate' was the opposite of 'to oppose'.
'He advocated against the law for abortion' is an active thing - it
means you put a case against it by supporting (or recommending) it
publicly
'He opposed the law for abortion' could be a passive thing - you just
vote 'no'. End of story.
'To advocate' has a number of antonyms: to oppose, to resist, to combat,
to criticise, to condemn, to denounce, to dissuade, to discouragerCa.
(Hurrah for English vocabulary!)
In this graphrCa
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=advocated+against%3Aeng_us%2Cadvocated+against%3Aeng_gb&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false>
rCa there is a big rise in 'advocated against' from about 2000. Why is
this? Are people doing more of it? I doubt it. So how was the idea
expressed before 2000? Did people find the above antonyms sufficient?
'To advocate against' is a barbarism, nonsensical and unnecessary.
It just needs a different construction (e.g.)
'To advocate the abolition of Slavery.'
(Rather than advocate against Slavery.)
On Sat, 16 May 2026 14:56:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/05/2026 08:45 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I've been seeing "asvocate for" with increasing frequency recently.
Almost invariably, in editing, I delete the "for", regarding it as an
instance of preposition bloat.
But it's becoming so common that I'm wondering if it is a new
standard, like "proven" instead of "proved".
I don't see a problem - one could advocate for one thing and advocate
against another, so the distinction needs to be made.
Similarly protesting can be for or against something, so the distinction >>> should always be made. A sentence such as "He protested the desision"
is meaningless (and very common nowadays).
I'm with you on "advocate for" and "advocate against".
And perhaps "advise for" and "advise against"?
And "recommend for" and "recommend against"?
Never neglect an opportunity to add a preposition!
I don't think so. The prepostion seems to amplify the
meanaing, making it more active, outreachng, extrovert.
Of course, /advocate for/ hardly ever applies to a
person.
I think adding unnecessary prepositions makes the prose
fluffier and weakens the meaning.
When I say I almost invariably delete the "for", it's when
"advocate" is used as a verb. When "for" follows the noun
it is lefitimate usage.
and the original Latin meaning, which I conjecture to
be: to speak in and on behalf of
It literally means someone you call to stand by you.
Steve Hayes to Anton Shepelev:
and the original Latin meaning, which I conjecture to
be: to speak in and on behalf of
It literally means someone you call to stand by you.
Not at all:
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:24:12 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,324 |