Difference: Pottery Bowl Was Fired to/in/at/on/with/by

ayed

Senior Member
Arabic(Saudi)
Hello, folks. I hope all of you've been very well.


What are the differences and implications that arise from the followin prepositons
1. The Pottery bowl was fired at a middle temperature.(exposed to a specific middle degree of heat)
2. The Pottery bowl was fired to a middle temperature.(exposed to such a degree of heat)
3. The Pottery bowl was fired in a middle temperature.( it could be in a kiln or an oven.i.e, in a closed place)
4.The Pottery bowl was fired on a middle temperature.(if overhung a burning fire)
5. The Pottery bowl was fired with a middle temperature.(no idea)
6. The Pottery bowl was fired by a middle temperature.(no idea)


Here are my thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
  • heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    To me, only the first sentence makes any sense. You fire a pot at a temperature.

    The others are an attempt to force meanings on to sentences which would never be seen or heard.
     

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    I agree that only the first is normal. Perhaps you could fire a pot to a particular temperature before you performed some other operation, but that would be more technical that what I think you want -- and I'm not even sure that this is done or is possible in pottery-making.

    And we might use medium temperature rather than middle temperature -- but I'm not sure we would be so inexact as to use either. No one would really know what a medium temperature was without more context.
     

    Fabulist

    Banned
    American English
    Note also that there is no reason to capitalize "pottery" in any of the proposed sentences.

    "Pottery bowl" ["pottery" capitalized because it is the first word of a sentence] is redundant. A bowl that is "fired" must be pottery. If the fact that it's a bowl, and not some other pottery item like a cup, is not important, one could just say "The pottery was fired . . ."
     

    lucas-sp

    Senior Member
    English - Californian
    Why couldn't you fire the bowl to a middle temperature? (Leaving aside the fact that "a middle temperature" doesn't sound good to me here.) You would just raise the bowl's temperature until the middle temperature was reached, and then remove it from the heat. This might not be good pottery practice, though.

    This is the same in cooking: pork is cooked to 160, but it's often cooked at 400, for instance. You certainly wouldn't want to cook your pork to 400!

    In conclusion: I understand "to" and "at" in this context, but none of the other prepositions make sense to me.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top