Allocate <to?>

< Previous | Next >
  • Sharon

    Senior Member
    United States, English
    DDT,
    If anything, I would use the word "to."
    "The funds were allocated to the charity."

    At this website, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allocate
    I found a few examples, and it seems that it is used as "to allocate + (a noun.)"

    "I am allocating a loaf of bread to everyone on a daily basis"
    "I'm allocating the rations for the camping trip"
    "A business must decide how to allocate the costs of running its headquarters over all its operations"


    Hope that helps! :)
     

    quehuong

    Senior Member
    Vietnam, Vietnamese
    DDT,

    Allocate is a transitive verb so it requires a direct object. The preposition phrases which come after the direct object are optional.

    I think for is the most commonly used preposition for the verb allocate.
     

    Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    I don't know when to use 'to', and when 'for'.
    I remember someone in this forum said 'allocate money to someone for something (some purpose)'.
    So, why 'to' instead 'for' here?
    Parents should limit their children's time allocated to a part-time job.
    Many many thanks
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    You normally allocate something (time, money, or other resources) to a person or entity that receives the allocation. You can also use for with a purpose.
    Notice how your example with money uses both to and for.
     

    Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    You normally allocate something (time, money, or other resources) to a person or entity that receives the allocation. You can also use for with a purpose.
    Notice how your example with money uses both to and for.
    So, it should be 'allocate time to physical activities', but 'allocate time for your health'?
    Many many thanks
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    It's not always clear-cut. You could, for example, allocate time for physical activities in your daily routine.

    On that note, I think I'll go outside for a brief stroll.
     

    Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    It's not always clear-cut. You could, for example, allocate time for physical activities in your daily routine.

    On that note, I think I'll go outside for a brief stroll.
    Did you mean both allocate time for and to physical activities are correct?
     

    Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    I mean both can be correct. It depends on how you use them in context.

    people who allocate time to amusements that relax their brain can have greater creativity in the workplace.


    Are you there, Edinburgher?
    Here I should use 'to', right?
    'Amusements' means recreational activities, and these activities are the direct receiver of the time.

    Thanks
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    Hmm. I think allocating time for amusements sounds a little better. Perhaps it's because I think of making room for them in my schedule. But using to would be perfectly acceptable too.
     

    Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Hmm. I think allocating time for amusements sounds a little better. Perhaps it's because I think of making room for them in my schedule. But using to would be perfectly acceptable too.
    thank you so much

    allocate time for physical activities in your daily routine.
    People who allocate time for amusements that relax their brain can have greater creativity in the workplace.

    For these 2 sentences, 'for' is not used to show a purpose, but make room for activities in someone's schedule, right?
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    but make room for activities in someone's schedule, right?
    Yes, and notice the difference between the two. In the "physical activities" example, the location (if you can call it that) in which time is allocated (namely "your daily routine") is explicitly stated, while in the "amusements" example it is only implied.

    Another interesting point is that when you use "to", this is clearly associated with "allocate", we allocate X to Y.
    With "for", on the other hand, the association with the verb is more tentative, and instead the "for" can join the two noun phrases: we allocate (X for Y). The "for Y" kind of acts like a modifier that describes X, and "X for Y" becomes a single noun phrase. Compare "What time is it?" -- "It's time for tea."
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    I didn't comment on this before, but to me "Parents should limit their children's time allocated to a part-time job." sounds so strange that I can't be quite sure what you want it to mean.
    Let's ignore the for/to question for now. Can you explain what you want the whole sentence to mean? Is it about children working in a part-time job during school vacations? Or even during school time?
    If so, it would make more sense to begin "Parents should limit the amount of time their children allocate ...", and once you do that, "to" really becomes the only option, because "time" is now further away from "part-time job".
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top