“to be prejudice towards/against someone” vs “to be prejudiced against/towards someone”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
add a comment |
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
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
yesterday
add a comment |
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
Which one is the correct form?
He's prejudice against/towards women.
He's prejudiced towards/against women.
phrase-usage
phrase-usage
edited 2 days ago
Andrew
71.4k679157
71.4k679157
asked 2 days ago
KaiqueKaique
1,507420
1,507420
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
yesterday
add a comment |
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
"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".
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days 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
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
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.
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
"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".
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
"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".
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
"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".
"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".
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
AndrewAndrew
71.4k679157
71.4k679157
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
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
yesterday
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Or, if it's something in favour of the thing, then he has a bias for it.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
@JasonBassford I think of bias as similarly negative, although both can be nuanced.
– Andrew
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days 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
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
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.
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days 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
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Weather VaneWeather Vane
4,5751417
4,5751417
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days 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
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days 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
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days ago
You can't be something negative towards someone?
– Kaique
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days ago
You changed it and then it became acceptable. It was not at first at all.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
Oh ok — but "first" refers to the noun usage in both the question and the answer.
– Weather Vane
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
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.
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
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.
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
SamBCSamBC
17.9k2566
17.9k2566
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days ago
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days ago
Why even bother with the OP's first, incorrect sentence?? It's really unacceptable English.
– Lambie
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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
yesterday