“to be prejudice towards/against someone” vs “to be prejudiced against/towards someone”As a...

Python: next in for loop

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

Is a tag line useful on a cover?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?

Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?

Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )

Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

Can divisibility rules for digits be generalized to sum of digits

Theorem, big Paralist and Amsart

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

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?

Is this a crack on the carbon frame?

Languages that we cannot (dis)prove to be Context-Free

How could an uplifted falcon's brain work?

How to find program name(s) of an installed package?

What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?

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

What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?

Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)

Minkowski space



“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;
}







3















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
    2 hours ago


















3















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
    2 hours ago














3












3








3








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 11 hours ago









Andrew

71.3k679156




71.3k679156










asked 12 hours ago









KaiqueKaique

1,458420




1,458420













  • 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
    2 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
    2 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
2 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
2 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
    6 hours ago











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

    – Andrew
    4 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
    4 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
    7 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
    7 hours ago



















1














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
    11 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
    11 hours ago













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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago













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

    – Weather Vane
    6 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
    6 hours ago











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

    – Andrew
    4 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
    4 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
    6 hours ago











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

    – Andrew
    4 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
    4 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 7 hours ago

























answered 11 hours ago









AndrewAndrew

71.3k679156




71.3k679156













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

    – Jason Bassford
    6 hours ago











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

    – Andrew
    4 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
    4 hours ago





















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

    – Jason Bassford
    6 hours ago











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

    – Andrew
    4 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
    4 hours ago



















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

– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago





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

– Jason Bassford
6 hours ago













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

– Andrew
4 hours ago





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

– Andrew
4 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
4 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
4 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
    7 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
    7 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
    7 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
    7 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 7 hours ago

























answered 11 hours ago









SamBCSamBC

17.4k2464




17.4k2464













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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago



















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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago

















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

– Lambie
7 hours ago





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

– Lambie
7 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
7 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
7 hours ago











1














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
    11 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
    11 hours ago













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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago













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

    – Weather Vane
    6 hours ago
















1














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
    11 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
    11 hours ago













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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago













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

    – Weather Vane
    6 hours ago














1












1








1







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 6 hours ago

























answered 11 hours ago









Weather VaneWeather Vane

4,5531417




4,5531417













  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    11 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
    11 hours ago













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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago













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

    – Weather Vane
    6 hours ago



















  • You can't be something negative towards someone?

    – Kaique
    11 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
    11 hours ago













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

    – Lambie
    7 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
    7 hours ago













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

    – Weather Vane
    6 hours ago

















You can't be something negative towards someone?

– Kaique
11 hours ago





You can't be something negative towards someone?

– Kaique
11 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
11 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
11 hours ago















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

– Lambie
7 hours ago







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

– Lambie
7 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
7 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
7 hours ago















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

– Weather Vane
6 hours ago





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

– Weather Vane
6 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

Why does my Macbook overheat and use so much CPU and energy when on YouTube?Why do so many insist on using...

How to prevent page numbers from appearing on glossaries?How to remove a dot and a page number in the...

Puerta de Hutt Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación15°58′00″S 5°42′00″O /...