1) They are going to sell the car for parts.

Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
someone who will disassemble the parts?

What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
same way?

Gratefully,
Navi

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:32:16 -0700 (PDT), arthurvv vart
<arthurvarr@gmail.com> wrote:

>1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>
>
>Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
>someone who will disassemble the parts?
>
>What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
>Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
>same way?
>

It doesn't, by the construction of the sentence, mean either.

It's fairly common with an older car that requires repairs that exceed
the value of the car to "sell it for parts". The owner may sell off
parts and then junk the remaining vehicle, or the owner may sell it
as-is to a junkyard that then disassembles the vehicle and sells each
part individually. Or, some of the junkyards allow customers to
remove the parts themselves.

This is an example of type of junkyard where the customer removes
parts from junked vehicles:

https://www.centralfloridapickandpay.com/

The sentence should be mentally read as "They are going to sell the
car for (the value of the) parts" with the meaning that there's no
value to entire vehicle, but there is value to the combined selling
price of the parts.

To answer your last question:

I bought the entire lot of used tools for the anvil.

The value of the anvil was worth the price of the entire lot of X
number of tools.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>
>
> Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> someone who will disassemble the parts?

The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
parts of the car together).
>
> What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?

Its basic meaning of purpose.
> Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> same way?

They raise cows for milk.

>
> Gratefully,
> Navi

In article <8fdac6d1-02d6-405a-837a-
077182234663n@googlegroups.com>, arthurvarr@gmail.com
says...
>
> 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>
>
> Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> someone who will disassemble the parts?

2.
>
> What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> same way?
>
> Gratefully,
> Navi

He takes drugs for kicks.

She gave away the clothes for free.

Janet

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> >
> >
> > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> parts of the car together).
> >
> > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > same way?

> They raise cows for milk.

The difference is that in your sentence, they get the milk, but it "sell
a car for parts", the buyers get the parts. "They're going to sell the
car for meat" would be an equivalent to Navi's sentence.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :

> > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> >
> > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > someone who will disassemble the parts?
>
> The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> parts of the car together).

Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.

Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > same way?
> They raise cows for milk.

No.

On 2023-07-27 06:32, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>>> 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
>>> selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
>>> someone who will disassemble the parts?
>> The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
>> generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
>> parts of the car together).
>>>
>>> What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
>> Its basic meaning of purpose.
>>> Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
>>> same way?
>
>> They raise cows for milk.
>
> The difference is that in your sentence, they get the milk, but it "sell
> a car for parts", the buyers get the parts. "They're going to sell the
> car for meat" would be an equivalent to Navi's sentence.

Not a lot of meat on a car.

--
Whenever I think of the past, it brings back so many memories.
~ Steven Wright

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 9:24:12 AM UTC-6, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2023-07-27 06:32, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> >> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> >>> 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> >>> selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> >>> someone who will disassemble the parts?
> >> The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> >> generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> >> parts of the car together).
> >>>
> >>> What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> >> Its basic meaning of purpose.
> >>> Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> >>> same way?
> >
> >> They raise cows for milk.
> >
> > The difference is that in your sentence, they get the milk, but it "sell
> > a car for parts", the buyers get the parts. "They're going to sell the
> > car for meat" would be an equivalent to Navi's sentence.

> Not a lot of meat on a car.

Cow. I meant "cow".

--
Jerry Friedman

Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>
> > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> > >
> > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> >
> > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> > parts of the car together).
> Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.

1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
2. I'm not taking orders from you.
>
> Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > > same way?
> > They raise cows for milk.
> No.

Yes.

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :

> > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> > > parts of the car together).
> > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
>
> 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
> The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
> voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.

Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.

> 2. I'm not taking orders from you.

You have finally admitted your practice. Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.

> > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > > > same way?
> > > They raise cows for milk.
> > No.
>
> Yes.

No.

Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>
> > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> > > > parts of the car together).
> > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
> >
> > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice..
> > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
> > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
> Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.

But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
imply it isn't what it means in English. Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
not "selling a car for parts".

> > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
> You have finally admitted your practice.

Just set the record straight with you.

> Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.

Smoke and mirrors, again...

> > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > > > > same way?
> > > > They raise cows for milk.
> > > No.
> >
> > Yes.
> No.
Yes.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
<bebercito@aol.com> wrote:

>Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>>
>> > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>> > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
>> > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
>> > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
>> > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
>> > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
>> > > > parts of the car together).
>> > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
>> >
>> > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
>> > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
>> > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
>> Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.
>
>But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
>imply it isn't what it means in English. Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
>what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
>practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
>not "selling a car for parts".

In customary English usage "parting out a car" is a phrase used to
describe the action of removing individual parts and selling them.
"Selling a car for parts" is a phrase that it is used to describe
selling the car for the value of the parts instead of selling the car
for value of a complete and functional vehicle.

Conceivably, the car could be partially "parted out" and then sold for
parts. There might be components like a high-end sound system that
would be "parted out" and then the rest of the vehicle would be sold
"for parts". Those remaining parts would be the standard used parts
of a car (starter, radiator, etc) that someone might want.
>
>> > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
>> You have finally admitted your practice.
>
>Just set the record straight with you.
>
>> Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
>
>Smoke and mirrors, again...
>
>> > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
>> > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
>> > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
>> > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
>> > > > > same way?
>> > > > They raise cows for milk.
>> > > No.
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> No.
>Yes.

I wouldn't use the cows and milk example as a good other example of
the "for" usage. In "They are going to sell the car for parts", the
"for" is used to mean the value of the parts. In the cow and milk
sentence, the "for" could mean the value to be obtained if they sell
milk or the milk might be for their own consumption.

The major problem with the cows and milk sentence as a comparable
usage is that selling a car for (the) parts (value) strongly implies
that this car is not a functional vehicle and will be sold at a price
far less than the value of the car if it was functional.

That aspect is not present in the cow and milk sentence.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 03:07:24 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >> > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> >>
> >> > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> >> > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> >> > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> >> > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> >> > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> >> > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> >> > > > parts of the car together).
> >> > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
> >> >
> >> > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
> >> > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
> >> > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
> >> Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.
> >
> >But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
> >imply it isn't what it means in English. Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
> >what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
> >practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
> >not "selling a car for parts".
> In customary English usage "parting out a car" is a phrase used to
> describe the action of removing individual parts and selling them.
> "Selling a car for parts" is a phrase that it is used to describe
> selling the car for the value of the parts instead of selling the car
> for value of a complete and functional vehicle.
>
> Conceivably, the car could be partially "parted out" and then sold for
> parts. There might be components like a high-end sound system that
> would be "parted out" and then the rest of the vehicle would be sold
> "for parts". Those remaining parts would be the standard used parts
> of a car (starter, radiator, etc) that someone might want.
> >
> >> > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
> >> You have finally admitted your practice.
> >
> >Just set the record straight with you.
> >
> >> Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
> >
> >Smoke and mirrors, again...
> >
> >> > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> >> > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> >> > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> >> > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> >> > > > > same way?
> >> > > > They raise cows for milk.
> >> > > No.
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> No.
> >Yes.
> I wouldn't use the cows and milk example as a good other example of
> the "for" usage. In "They are going to sell the car for parts", the
> "for" is used to mean the value of the parts.

I agree that the selling price of the car is set in accordance with the value
of the parts as you've described, but that aspect is only incidental and
doesn't in itself justify the wording of "sell a car *for* parts". As I see it,
the expression could be paraphrased as "sell a car to be used for (spare)
parts", not "sell a car for the value of the parts" (though, again, the price
amounts to the value of the salvageable parts).

In other words, and since it was the OP's original query, I'd say that
the "for" in the phrase discussed matches M-W's definition 1 a:

---
used as a function word to indicate purpose
a grant for studying medicine
---

rather than definition 8 a:

---
used as a function word to indicate equivalence in exchange
$10 for a hat

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
---

> In the cow and milk
> sentence, the "for" could mean the value to be obtained if they sell
> milk or the milk might be for their own consumption.
>
> The major problem with the cows and milk sentence as a comparable
> usage is that selling a car for (the) parts (value) strongly implies
> that this car is not a functional vehicle and will be sold at a price
> far less than the value of the car if it was functional.
>
> That aspect is not present in the cow and milk sentence.
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
<bebercito@aol.com> wrote:

>Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 03:07:24 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
>> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> >> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> >> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> >> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> >> > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>> >> > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
>> >> > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
>> >> > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
>> >> > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
>> >> > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
>> >> > > > parts of the car together).
>> >> > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
>> >> > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
>> >> > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
>> >> Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.
>> >
>> >But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
>> >imply it isn't what it means in English. Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
>> >what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
>> >practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
>> >not "selling a car for parts".
>> In customary English usage "parting out a car" is a phrase used to
>> describe the action of removing individual parts and selling them.
>> "Selling a car for parts" is a phrase that it is used to describe
>> selling the car for the value of the parts instead of selling the car
>> for value of a complete and functional vehicle.
>>
>> Conceivably, the car could be partially "parted out" and then sold for
>> parts. There might be components like a high-end sound system that
>> would be "parted out" and then the rest of the vehicle would be sold
>> "for parts". Those remaining parts would be the standard used parts
>> of a car (starter, radiator, etc) that someone might want.
>> >
>> >> > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
>> >> You have finally admitted your practice.
>> >
>> >Just set the record straight with you.
>> >
>> >> Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
>> >
>> >Smoke and mirrors, again...
>> >
>> >> > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
>> >> > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
>> >> > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
>> >> > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
>> >> > > > > same way?
>> >> > > > They raise cows for milk.
>> >> > > No.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes.
>> >> No.
>> >Yes.
>> I wouldn't use the cows and milk example as a good other example of
>> the "for" usage. In "They are going to sell the car for parts", the
>> "for" is used to mean the value of the parts.
>
>I agree that the selling price of the car is set in accordance with the value
>of the parts as you've described, but that aspect is only incidental and
>doesn't in itself justify the wording of "sell a car *for* parts". As I see it,
>the expression could be paraphrased as "sell a car to be used for (spare)
>parts", not "sell a car for the value of the parts" (though, again, the price
>amounts to the value of the salvageable parts).

In my opinion you have to view the phrase as it is used. The phrase
"sell a car for parts" is *always* used in American English in the
context of selling the car for a lesser value than the car would
command if fully functional. There is no other reason to state that
the car is being sold "for parts".

Therefore, the value aspect is not "incidental"; it's paramount.

>In other words, and since it was the OP's original query, I'd say that
>the "for" in the phrase discussed matches M-W's definition 1 a:
>
>---
>used as a function word to indicate purpose
>a grant for studying medicine
>---
>
That's like the cow and milk sentence in that there's no comparative
value aspect.

Go back to my example in an earlier post: "I purchased the entire lot
of tools for the anvil".

There's an implied comparative value in that example. The anvil alone
is worth the price of purchase for the entire lot, so the other tools
in the lot have much less value.

>rather than definition 8 a:
>
>---
>used as a function word to indicate equivalence in exchange
>$10 for a hat
>
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
>---
>
>> In the cow and milk
>> sentence, the "for" could mean the value to be obtained if they sell
>> milk or the milk might be for their own consumption.
>>
>> The major problem with the cows and milk sentence as a comparable
>> usage is that selling a car for (the) parts (value) strongly implies
>> that this car is not a functional vehicle and will be sold at a price
>> far less than the value of the car if it was functional.
>>
>> That aspect is not present in the cow and milk sentence.
>> --
>>
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Thursday, lar3ryca queried:
> On 2023-07-27 06:32, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:12:38 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>>> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>>>> 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
>>>> selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
>>>> someone who will disassemble the parts?
>>> The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
>>> generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
>>> parts of the car together).
>>>>
>>>> What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
>>> Its basic meaning of purpose.
>>>> Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
>>>> same way?
>>
>>> They raise cows for milk.
>>
>> The difference is that in your sentence, they get the milk, but it "sell
>> a car for parts", the buyers get the parts. "They're going to sell the
>> car for meat" would be an equivalent to Navi's sentence.
>
> Not a lot of meat on a car.

Try a muscle car.

-d

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 05:51:12 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 03:07:24 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
> >> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> >> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >> >> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> >> >> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38?PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> >> >> > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> >> >> > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> >> >> > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> >> >> > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> >> >> > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> >> >> > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> >> >> > > > parts of the car together).
> >> >> > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
> >> >> > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
> >> >> > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
> >> >> Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.
> >> >
> >> >But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
> >> >imply it isn't what it means in English. Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
> >> >what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
> >> >practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
> >> >not "selling a car for parts".
> >> In customary English usage "parting out a car" is a phrase used to
> >> describe the action of removing individual parts and selling them.
> >> "Selling a car for parts" is a phrase that it is used to describe
> >> selling the car for the value of the parts instead of selling the car
> >> for value of a complete and functional vehicle.
> >>
> >> Conceivably, the car could be partially "parted out" and then sold for
> >> parts. There might be components like a high-end sound system that
> >> would be "parted out" and then the rest of the vehicle would be sold
> >> "for parts". Those remaining parts would be the standard used parts
> >> of a car (starter, radiator, etc) that someone might want.
> >> >
> >> >> > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
> >> >> You have finally admitted your practice.
> >> >
> >> >Just set the record straight with you.
> >> >
> >> >> Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
> >> >
> >> >Smoke and mirrors, again...
> >> >
> >> >> > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> >> >> > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> >> >> > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> >> >> > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> >> >> > > > > same way?
> >> >> > > > They raise cows for milk.
> >> >> > > No.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes.
> >> >> No.
> >> >Yes.
> >> I wouldn't use the cows and milk example as a good other example of
> >> the "for" usage. In "They are going to sell the car for parts", the
> >> "for" is used to mean the value of the parts.
> >
> >I agree that the selling price of the car is set in accordance with the value
> >of the parts as you've described, but that aspect is only incidental and
> >doesn't in itself justify the wording of "sell a car *for* parts". As I see it,
> >the expression could be paraphrased as "sell a car to be used for (spare)
> >parts", not "sell a car for the value of the parts" (though, again, the price
> >amounts to the value of the salvageable parts).
> In my opinion you have to view the phrase as it is used. The phrase
> "sell a car for parts" is *always* used in American English in the
> context of selling the car for a lesser value than the car would
> command if fully functional.

And so is it with the equivalent non-English phrases.

> There is no other reason to state that the car is being sold "for parts".

The reason is that it indicates that the car is not usable as is and can
only be bought to salvage some of its parts. A similar phrase is "sold as
a wreck" (where a lower price is also evidently implied).
>
> Therefore, the value aspect is not "incidental"; it's paramount.

The value aspect is indeed paramount, but what I mean by "incidental" is
that it *ensues from* the fact that the car is only sold for its parts to be
salvaged by the buyer.

> >In other words, and since it was the OP's original query, I'd say that
> >the "for" in the phrase discussed matches M-W's definition 1 a:
> >
> >---
> >used as a function word to indicate purpose
> >a grant for studying medicine
> >---
> >
> That's like the cow and milk sentence in that there's no comparative
> value aspect.
>
> Go back to my example in an earlier post: "I purchased the entire lot
> of tools for the anvil".

Reading this, I'd understand that you purchased the entire lot because you
needed the anvil, not "for the value of the anvil". Eliding "value of" for the
latter meaning seems exceedingly misleading to me. But then, maybe it's
just me.

>
> There's an implied comparative value in that example. The anvil alone
> is worth the price of purchase for the entire lot, so the other tools
> in the lot have much less value.
> >rather than definition 8 a:
> >
> >---
> >used as a function word to indicate equivalence in exchange
> >$10 for a hat
> >
> >https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
> >---
> >
> >> In the cow and milk
> >> sentence, the "for" could mean the value to be obtained if they sell
> >> milk or the milk might be for their own consumption.
> >>
> >> The major problem with the cows and milk sentence as a comparable
> >> usage is that selling a car for (the) parts (value) strongly implies
> >> that this car is not a functional vehicle and will be sold at a price
> >> far less than the value of the car if it was functional.
> >>
> >> That aspect is not present in the cow and milk sentence.
> >> --
> >>
> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 05:46:01 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
<bebercito@aol.com> wrote:

>> That's like the cow and milk sentence in that there's no comparative
>> value aspect.
>>
>> Go back to my example in an earlier post: "I purchased the entire lot
>> of tools for the anvil".
>
>Reading this, I'd understand that you purchased the entire lot because you
>needed the anvil, not "for the value of the anvil". Eliding "value of" for the
>latter meaning seems exceedingly misleading to me. But then, maybe it's
>just me.
>

You can assume the buyer needs an anvil, but not that the buyer needs
this anvil. This anvil is attractive to the buyer because the cost is
less than a comparable anvil purchased elsewhere. There are other
sources for anvils available to buyer of the lot of tools.

It's the same presumption in the car parts scenario. The buyer gets
the part(s) at a cost that is less than the part(s) purchased
elsewhere.
Again...statements or phrasing should be viewed as they are used.

>>
>> There's an implied comparative value in that example. The anvil alone
>> is worth the price of purchase for the entire lot, so the other tools
>> in the lot have much less value.
>> >rather than definition 8 a:
>> >
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> >
> > > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> > > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> > > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> > > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> > > > > parts of the car together).
> > > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
> > >
> > > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
> > > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
> > > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said.
> > Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.
>
> But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
> imply it isn't what it means in English.

Oh, please. What is demonstrated is your perpetual practice: you
interpret everything as if it were French, and cannot be dissuaded
from your mistaken understandings of English.

> Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
> what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
> practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
> not "selling a car for parts".

Where the hell and by whom is "parting out a car" used?

When does the owner of a junked car disassemble it themself and
sell the parts, unless they are already in that business?

(Not to mention ordinances about keeping car carcasses out in public,
let alone on the street, where they are eyesores and hazards for children.)

> > > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
> > You have finally admitted your practice.
>
> Just set the record straight with you.
>
> > Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
>
> Smoke and mirrors, again...

Look up the King James translation.

(As my Aramaic professor pointed out, literally it's just '2 minas
a shekel and a half'.)

> > > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> > > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> > > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > > > > > same way?
> > > > > They raise cows for milk.
> > > > No.
> > > Yes.
> > No.
> Yes.

No. Haven't you read the rest of the thread?

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 3:58:22 AM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:
> On Thursday, lar3ryca queried:
> > On 2023-07-27 06:32, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> >> The difference is that in your sentence, they get the milk, but it "sell
> >> a car for parts", the buyers get the parts. "They're going to sell the
> >> car for meat" would be an equivalent to Navi's sentence.
> > Not a lot of meat on a car.
>
> Try a muscle car.

:-)

Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 15:24:44 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 05:46:01 -0700 (PDT), Bebercito
> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's like the cow and milk sentence in that there's no comparative
> >> value aspect.
> >>
> >> Go back to my example in an earlier post: "I purchased the entire lot
> >> of tools for the anvil".
> >
> >Reading this, I'd understand that you purchased the entire lot because you
> >needed the anvil, not "for the value of the anvil". Eliding "value of" for the
> >latter meaning seems exceedingly misleading to me. But then, maybe it's
> >just me.
> >
> You can assume the buyer needs an anvil, but not that the buyer needs
> this anvil. This anvil is attractive to the buyer because the cost is
> less than a comparable anvil purchased elsewhere. There are other
> sources for anvils available to buyer of the lot of tools.

I see your point, but then the phrase means "I purchased the entire lot
of tools to get (= "for") this anvil". (Where the attractive price is implied.)

>
> It's the same presumption in the car parts scenario. The buyer gets
> the part(s) at a cost that is less than the part(s) purchased
> elsewhere.
>
> Again...statements or phrasing should be viewed as they are used.
> >>
> >> There's an implied comparative value in that example. The anvil alone
> >> is worth the price of purchase for the entire lot, so the other tools
> >> in the lot have much less value.
> >> >rather than definition 8 a:
> >> >
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:46:04 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 05:51:12 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :

> > In my opinion you have to view the phrase as it is used. The phrase
> > "sell a car for parts" is *always* used in American English in the
> > context of selling the car for a lesser value than the car would
> > command if fully functional.
>
> And so is it with the equivalent non-English phrases.

We are not talking about non-English. (Except in your interpretations.)

> > There is no other reason to state that the car is being sold "for parts".
>
> The reason is that it indicates that the car is not usable as is and can
> only be bought to salvage some of its parts. A similar phrase is "sold as
> a wreck" (where a lower price is also evidently implied).

Where did you find _that_ phrase????

> > Therefore, the value aspect is not "incidental"; it's paramount.
>
> The value aspect is indeed paramount, but what I mean by "incidental" is
> that it *ensues from* the fact that the car is only sold for its parts to be
> salvaged by the buyer.

Maybe that's the meaning of "incidental" in French. Not in English.

Nor does "ensue from" look normal.

> > That's like the cow and milk sentence in that there's no comparative
> > value aspect.
> > Go back to my example in an earlier post: "I purchased the entire lot
> > of tools for the anvil".
>
> Reading this, I'd understand that you purchased the entire lot because you
> needed the anvil, not "for the value of the anvil". Eliding "value of" for the
> latter meaning seems exceedingly misleading to me. But then, maybe it's
> just me.

Tony's explanation is pellucidly clear (to be redundant). It's always "just you."

> > There's an implied comparative value in that example. The anvil alone
> > is worth the price of purchase for the entire lot, so the other tools
> > in the lot have much less value.

Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 15:32:49 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 22:21:04 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 1:27:22 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 15:42:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:12:38 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > > Le jeudi 27 juillet 2023 à 01:32:19 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > >
> > > > > > > 1) They are going to sell the car for parts.
> > > > > > > Does that mean that they are going to disassemble it before
> > > > > > > selling the parts, or does that mean they are going to sell it to
> > > > > > > someone who will disassemble the parts?
> > > > > > The latter, or else they would just be said to sell the parts, which is
> > > > > > generally done on an individual basis (i.e. by type of part, not all the
> > > > > > parts of the car together).
> > > > > Since you don't know idiomatic English, don't comment on it.
> > > >
> > > > 1. This is not about "idiomatic English" but about a worldwide practice.
> > > > The exact calque of the English phrase exists in French ("vendre une
> > > > voiture pour des/les pièces") and it means exactly what I said..
> > > Q.E.D. It is not what it means in English.
> >
> > But nothing has been demonstrated. That it is what it means in French doesn't
> > imply it isn't what it means in English.
> Oh, please. What is demonstrated is your perpetual practice: you
> interpret everything as if it were French, and cannot be dissuaded
> from your mistaken understandings of English.
> > Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
> > what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
> > practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
> > not "selling a car for parts".
> Where the hell and by whom is "parting out a car" used?

Do your homework and you'll easily find out for yourself.
>
> When does the owner of a junked car disassemble it themself and
> sell the parts, unless they are already in that business?

Ditto.

>
> (Not to mention ordinances about keeping car carcasses out in public,
> let alone on the street, where they are eyesores and hazards for children..)
> > > > 2. I'm not taking orders from you.
> > > You have finally admitted your practice.
> >
> > Just set the record straight with you.
> >
> > > Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.
> >
> > Smoke and mirrors, again...
> Look up the King James translation.

I had seen the translation and even the interpretation of the phrase,
and, precisely, found them irrelevant to your intended quip.

>
> (As my Aramaic professor pointed out, literally it's just '2 minas
> a shekel and a half'.)
> > > > > Tony Cooper's explanation is exactly right from beginning to end.
> > > > > > > What would you say the meaning of 'for' is in the sentence?
> > > > > > Its basic meaning of purpose.
> > > > > > > Could you come up with a sentence where 'for' is used in the
> > > > > > > same way?
> > > > > > They raise cows for milk.
> > > > > No.
> > > > Yes.
> > > No.
> > Yes.
> No. Haven't you read the rest of the thread?

Yes to both.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:32:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Again, "selling a car for parts" means exactly
>> what it says, with an equivalent phrase existing in all languages. The particular
>> practice of selling off parts mentioned by Tony is actually called "parting out a car"
>> not "selling a car for parts".
>
>Where the hell and by whom is "parting out a car" used?
>
>When does the owner of a junked car disassemble it themself and
>sell the parts, unless they are already in that business?
>
>(Not to mention ordinances about keeping car carcasses out in public,
>let alone on the street, where they are eyesores and hazards for children.)
>

I wouldn't give him static over that. It's done far more than you
seem to be aware of.

When a vehicle becomes too costly to repair it may be sold to a
junkyard, but the junkyard will pay either a flat price or by weight.
It's not uncommon to remove and sell certain parts and then sell the
remains to the junkyard. The price received from the junkyard will
not be less if the starter, generator, or other parts have been sold
off separately. It's particularly true with certain brands/models of
cars.

In places like Facebook Marketplace, OfferUp, and other online
public-to-public sites you'll find ads placed by individuals who are
parting out cars. A quick search in Google will bring up several
articles and videos on the subject.

The phrase "already in that business" is rather open in meaning. A
"side gig" of buying cars to part out, or a shadetree mechanic who
parts out cars is "in the business", but not the owner of a business
in the usual sense.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 15:41:45 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:46:04 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 05:51:12 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
>
> > > In my opinion you have to view the phrase as it is used. The phrase
> > > "sell a car for parts" is *always* used in American English in the
> > > context of selling the car for a lesser value than the car would
> > > command if fully functional.
> >
> > And so is it with the equivalent non-English phrases.
> We are not talking about non-English. (Except in your interpretations.)

But I'm talking about the non-specific meaning of the phrase in English
wrt other languages, since you claim it is an idiom in English.

> > > There is no other reason to state that the car is being sold "for parts".
> >
> > The reason is that it indicates that the car is not usable as is and can
> > only be bought to salvage some of its parts. A similar phrase is "sold as
> > a wreck" (where a lower price is also evidently implied).
> Where did you find _that_ phrase????

Again, do your homework and you'll easily find out for yourself.

> > > Therefore, the value aspect is not "incidental"; it's paramount.
> >
> > The value aspect is indeed paramount, but what I mean by "incidental" is
> > that it *ensues from* the fact that the car is only sold for its parts to be
> > salvaged by the buyer.
> Maybe that's the meaning of "incidental" in French. Not in English.

Or maybe not.

>
> Nor does "ensue from" look normal.

To you.

> > > That's like the cow and milk sentence in that there's no comparative
> > > value aspect.
> > > Go back to my example in an earlier post: "I purchased the entire lot
> > > of tools for the anvil".
> >
> > Reading this, I'd understand that you purchased the entire lot because you
> > needed the anvil, not "for the value of the anvil". Eliding "value of" for the
> > latter meaning seems exceedingly misleading to me. But then, maybe it's
> > just me.
> Tony's explanation is pellucidly clear (to be redundant).

And my refutation thereof is crystal clear (not to be redundant).

> It's always "just you."

Who knows? I'd be really curious to know whether other native speakers
of English make the same "value" extrapolation that Tony does.

> > > There's an implied comparative value in that example. The anvil alone
> > > is worth the price of purchase for the entire lot, so the other tools
> > > in the lot have much less value.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:46:04?AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le vendredi 28 juillet 2023 à 05:51:12 UTC+2, TonyCooper a écrit :
>
>> > In my opinion you have to view the phrase as it is used. The phrase
>> > "sell a car for parts" is *always* used in American English in the
>> > context of selling the car for a lesser value than the car would
>> > command if fully functional.
>>
>> And so is it with the equivalent non-English phrases.
>
>We are not talking about non-English. (Except in your interpretations.)
>
>> > There is no other reason to state that the car is being sold "for parts".
>>
>> The reason is that it indicates that the car is not usable as is and can
>> only be bought to salvage some of its parts. A similar phrase is "sold as
>> a wreck" (where a lower price is also evidently implied).
>
>Where did you find _that_ phrase????

In the US, the phrase is "sold for salvage". There is a even a title
classification - Salvage Title - for vehicles that cannot be issued a
regular title.

In the US, that type of title is often used when selling vehicles that
have been in a flood. They haven't been wrecked, but it is illegal to
sell them as working vehicles with a regular title. It is also used
when the vehicle is sold by the agent of an insurance carrier selling
a vehicle that has been written off as non-repairable due to a wreck.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/what-is-a-salvage-title-vehicle.html

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida