“to be prejudice towards/against someone” vs “to be prejudiced against/towards someone”As a “someone” usage“I am most interested in X.” vs “I am mostly interested in X.”Past participle of “let <object> <verb>”What “have gone to someone” really mean?Pony up, did I knowStep to it, to it“Twenty-four hour” or "twenty-four-hour?Which expression is correct in purpose or on purpose?More often than not, can we use it in different contexts, changing the fixed expression a bit?“for someone to” verb phrases

Mathematical cryptic clues

Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?

How to say job offer in Mandarin/Cantonese?

Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?

"which" command doesn't work / path of Safari?

The magic money tree problem

Service Entrance Breakers Rain Shield

Do VLANs within a subnet need to have their own subnet for router on a stick?

How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?

Prevent a directory in /tmp from being deleted

How old can references or sources in a thesis be?

Is the month field really deprecated?

How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?

Japan - Plan around max visa duration

GPS Rollover on Android Smartphones

Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Is the language <p,n> belongs to NP class?

Can a Warlock become Neutral Good?

Why linear maps act like matrix multiplication?

Interpreting images representing geometric series

How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative?

strToHex ( string to its hex representation as string)

How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?



“to be prejudice towards/against someone” vs “to be prejudiced against/towards someone”


As a “someone” usage“I am most interested in X.” vs “I am mostly interested in X.”Past participle of “let <object> <verb>”What “have gone to someone” really mean?Pony up, did I knowStep to it, to it“Twenty-four hour” or "twenty-four-hour?Which expression is correct in purpose or on purpose?More often than not, can we use it in different contexts, changing the fixed expression a bit?“for someone to” verb phrases






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4















Which one is the correct form?




He's prejudice against/towards women.



He's prejudiced towards/against women.











share|improve this question
























  • Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.

    – trlkly
    12 hours ago

















4















Which one is the correct form?




He's prejudice against/towards women.



He's prejudiced towards/against women.











share|improve this question
























  • Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.

    – trlkly
    12 hours ago













4












4








4








Which one is the correct form?




He's prejudice against/towards women.



He's prejudiced towards/against women.











share|improve this question
















Which one is the correct form?




He's prejudice against/towards women.



He's prejudiced towards/against women.








phrase-usage






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 21 hours ago









Andrew

71.3k679157




71.3k679157










asked 21 hours ago









KaiqueKaique

1,463420




1,463420












  • Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.

    – trlkly
    12 hours ago

















  • Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.

    – trlkly
    12 hours ago
















Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.

– trlkly
12 hours ago





Good question. This is actually a common error, even with native speakers. This may be due to how final /t/ sometimes is dropped after /s/ in less careful speech.

– trlkly
12 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.




He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:




He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.




He has a prejudice against women



He is prejudiced against women.




Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:




The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.




This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".






share|improve this answer

























  • Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

    – Jason Bassford
    15 hours ago











  • @JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

    – Andrew
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

    – Jason Bassford
    14 hours ago



















3














In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.



The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as




He's prejudice personified




but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".



About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.




He's prejudiced against women.



He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.







share|improve this answer

























  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

    – Weather Vane
    21 hours ago












  • You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago












  • "He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

    – Lambie
    16 hours ago












  • Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

    – Weather Vane
    16 hours ago


















1














Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:




He is prejudice against women.




Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.



But then there's:




He is prejudiced against women.




This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.



Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.



In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).




1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.






share|improve this answer

























  • Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

    – SamBC
    17 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204197%2fto-be-prejudice-towards-against-someone-vs-to-be-prejudiced-against-towards-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6














"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.




He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:




He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.




He has a prejudice against women



He is prejudiced against women.




Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:




The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.




This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".






share|improve this answer

























  • Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

    – Jason Bassford
    15 hours ago











  • @JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

    – Andrew
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

    – Jason Bassford
    14 hours ago
















6














"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.




He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:




He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.




He has a prejudice against women



He is prejudiced against women.




Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:




The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.




This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".






share|improve this answer

























  • Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

    – Jason Bassford
    15 hours ago











  • @JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

    – Andrew
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

    – Jason Bassford
    14 hours ago














6












6








6







"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.




He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:




He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.




He has a prejudice against women



He is prejudiced against women.




Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:




The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.




This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".






share|improve this answer















"Prejudice" is a noun. You can't be prejudice -- instead you have a prejudice.




He has a prejudice against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Or you can say the same thing with "prejudice" as a verb, in this case expressed as a past participle adjective:




He is prejudiced against eating what he considers "foreign" food.




Both are fine. There is no difference in meaning.




He has a prejudice against women



He is prejudiced against women.




Side note: Because "prejudice" is generally a negative condition, you have to be careful when using "prejudice towards" something. This usually indicates a prejudice in the direction of some negative outcome:




The judge ruled the evidence would unlawfully prejudice the jury toward convicting the defendant.




This means that when you say something like, "He is prejudiced toward women," it implies you disapprove of this attitude. If you want to make a more neutral statement, you can instead use terms like "prefer", "incline toward", or "partial to".







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 17 hours ago

























answered 21 hours ago









AndrewAndrew

71.3k679157




71.3k679157












  • Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

    – Jason Bassford
    15 hours ago











  • @JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

    – Andrew
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

    – Jason Bassford
    14 hours ago


















  • Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

    – Jason Bassford
    15 hours ago











  • @JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

    – Andrew
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

    – Jason Bassford
    14 hours ago

















Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

– Jason Bassford
15 hours ago





Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.

– Jason Bassford
15 hours ago













@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

– Andrew
14 hours ago





@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.

– Andrew
14 hours ago




1




1





The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

– Jason Bassford
14 hours ago






The act is often negative (because nobody likes bias of any kind) but while it's awkward to say a prejudice in favour of some group, it's normal to hear a bias in favour of some group or biased toward some group.

– Jason Bassford
14 hours ago














3














In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.



The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as




He's prejudice personified




but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".



About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.




He's prejudiced against women.



He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.







share|improve this answer

























  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

    – Weather Vane
    21 hours ago












  • You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago












  • "He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

    – Lambie
    16 hours ago












  • Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

    – Weather Vane
    16 hours ago















3














In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.



The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as




He's prejudice personified




but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".



About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.




He's prejudiced against women.



He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.







share|improve this answer

























  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

    – Weather Vane
    21 hours ago












  • You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago












  • "He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

    – Lambie
    16 hours ago












  • Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

    – Weather Vane
    16 hours ago













3












3








3







In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.



The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as




He's prejudice personified




but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".



About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.




He's prejudiced against women.



He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.







share|improve this answer















In the first usage "prejudice" is a noun, and in the second usage "prejudiced" is an adjective.



The usage as a descriptive noun might rarely be used at a stretch as




He's prejudice personified




but the usual use is as the adjective "prejudiced".



About the choice of against and toward, these two examples show the difference.




He's prejudiced against women.



He's friendly towards beggars.
e that is unlikely to be used by a native speaker.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 16 hours ago

























answered 21 hours ago









Weather VaneWeather Vane

4,5651417




4,5651417












  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

    – Weather Vane
    21 hours ago












  • You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago












  • "He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

    – Lambie
    16 hours ago












  • Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

    – Weather Vane
    16 hours ago

















  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    21 hours ago






  • 1





    You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

    – Weather Vane
    21 hours ago












  • You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago












  • "He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

    – Lambie
    16 hours ago












  • Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

    – Weather Vane
    16 hours ago
















You can't be something negative towards someone?

– Kaique
21 hours ago





You can't be something negative towards someone?

– Kaique
21 hours ago




1




1





You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

– Weather Vane
21 hours ago






You can be prejudiced towards someone or something, but usually it is against. "He is prejudiced towards members of his club". To put it another way, you can't be attracted against someone, or be repelled towards them.

– Weather Vane
21 hours ago














You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

– Lambie
17 hours ago






You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.

– Lambie
17 hours ago














"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

– Lambie
16 hours ago






"He's prejudice personified". I don't think that is a stretch at all. I think it is proper usage. My native language is English.

– Lambie
16 hours ago














Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

– Weather Vane
16 hours ago





Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.

– Weather Vane
16 hours ago











1














Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:




He is prejudice against women.




Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.



But then there's:




He is prejudiced against women.




This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.



Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.



In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).




1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.






share|improve this answer

























  • Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

    – SamBC
    17 hours ago















1














Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:




He is prejudice against women.




Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.



But then there's:




He is prejudiced against women.




This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.



Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.



In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).




1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.






share|improve this answer

























  • Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

    – SamBC
    17 hours ago













1












1








1







Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:




He is prejudice against women.




Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.



But then there's:




He is prejudiced against women.




This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.



Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.



In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).




1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.






share|improve this answer















Prejudice is a noun, and prejudiced is an adjective. Let's say you were to say:




He is prejudice against women.




Then you would be claiming that he, himself, is "prejudice against women", a concept or feeling or state of mind. That's a noun phrase. Being generous, we could assume you were describing him as the personification of such prejudice. That is highly unlikely to be anything you want to say.



But then there's:




He is prejudiced against women.




This is a much more sensible thing to say. In that case, prejudiced is an adjective, and against women is a complement of that adjective, as it completes the meaning of prejudiced. Actually, the against women bit is a complement in the other case as well.



Now, a quick exploration of that against/towards thing. There's an argument that prejudice is an inherently negative concept, and philosophically it might be. As a word, though, it means to pre-judge, to judge in absence of evidence based on some characteristic. There's a school of thought that says that prejudice toward(s)1 something is prejudice in that thing's favour, and prejudice against something is to that thing's detriment.



In my experience, some people have that assumption, and others don't. Personally, I see prejudice against as to the detriment, and prejudice towards as neutral. The expression for prejudice in favour would be prejudice in favour of. NGram suggests that against is used more than the other forms put together, though in favour used to be much more common than toward(s).




1: Let's not get into the toward/towards debate here, though. It's rather tangential to the question.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 16 hours ago

























answered 20 hours ago









SamBCSamBC

17.5k2565




17.5k2565












  • Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

    – SamBC
    17 hours ago

















  • Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

    – Lambie
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    @Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

    – SamBC
    17 hours ago
















Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

– Lambie
17 hours ago





Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.

– Lambie
17 hours ago




1




1





@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

– SamBC
17 hours ago





@Lambie: Because it's not actually meaningless. It's just a meaning you are never likely to want to use. Explaining why that is will be more useful than just saying "don't do that".

– SamBC
17 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f204197%2fto-be-prejudice-towards-against-someone-vs-to-be-prejudiced-against-towards-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Reverse int within the 32-bit signed integer range: [−2^31, 2^31 − 1]Combining two 32-bit integers into one 64-bit integerDetermine if an int is within rangeLossy packing 32 bit integer to 16 bitComputing the square root of a 64-bit integerKeeping integer addition within boundsSafe multiplication of two 64-bit signed integersLeetcode 10: Regular Expression MatchingSigned integer-to-ascii x86_64 assembler macroReverse the digits of an Integer“Add two numbers given in reverse order from a linked list”

Category:Fedor von Bock Media in category "Fedor von Bock"Navigation menuUpload mediaISNI: 0000 0000 5511 3417VIAF ID: 24712551GND ID: 119294796Library of Congress authority ID: n96068363BnF ID: 12534305fSUDOC authorities ID: 034604189Open Library ID: OL338253ANKCR AUT ID: jn19990000869National Library of Israel ID: 000514068National Thesaurus for Author Names ID: 341574317ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

Kiel Indholdsfortegnelse Historie | Transport og færgeforbindelser | Sejlsport og anden sport | Kultur | Kendte personer fra Kiel | Noter | Litteratur | Eksterne henvisninger | Navigationsmenuwww.kiel.de54°19′31″N 10°8′26″Ø / 54.32528°N 10.14056°Ø / 54.32528; 10.14056Oberbürgermeister Dr. Ulf Kämpferwww.statistik-nord.deDen danske Stats StatistikKiels hjemmesiderrrWorldCat312794080n790547494030481-4