# for which



## JackInMadrid

Hola
Yo no puedo traducir "for which" en las siguientes oraciónes. ¿Alguien pueda ayudarme?

There are no problems for which there are no solutions
It is a question for which there is no reply
There are needs for which only technology can provide for

Mis traducciónes son:
No hay problems para los que no hay soluciónes
Es una pregunta para el que no hay una respuesta
Hay necesidades para los que tecnología puede proveer solomente

Estoy seguro que hay muchos errors porque estas oraciónes son de un nivel más alto que el mío.

Gracias
Jack


----------



## mhp

I'll get it started: 

 No hay problema que no tenga solución.
Es una pregunta que no tiene respuesta.
Hay necesidades que sólo la tecnología puede satisfacer.


----------



## JackInMadrid

thanks mhp
You've made me realise that "for which" can often be translated as "that" or "of which"

In fact there is use of "for which" that doesn't translate in this way. Where some sort of "possession" is implied.
For example
I have a question for which the standard reply isn't sufficient
I have a data request for which the reply lacks some information

Could I use "whose"??
Tengo una pregunta cuya respuesta no es sufficiente
Tengo una petición para datos cuya respuesta falta información

It's a very fine grammar point and difficult to find good examples. 
thanks in advance 
Jack


----------



## mhp

Don’t trust my replies too much Jack. Better wait for the natives 
  But as far as I know cuyo is a perfectly good relative pronoun which is way underused. 
  I’m still waiting for someone to show the errors of my ways.  If they correct you first, as is likely, be sure to tell me where I went wrong.


----------



## Jellby

JackInMadrid said:


> There are no problems for which there are no solutions
> It is a question for which there is no reply
> There are needs for which only technology can provide for



Literalmente:

No hay problemas para los que/cuales no haya soluciones
Es una pregunta para la que/cual no hay respuesta

... la tercera... ¿es correcta? ¿Se puede decir en inglés "for which ... for? Creo que el "for" corresponde "provide for", y en la traducción no tiene mucho sentido usar una preposición.

De manera más natural:

No hay problema sin solución
Es una pregunta que no tiene respuesta.
Hay necesidades que sólo la tecnología puede satisfacer/mantener/sustentar


----------



## cirrus

For the third one would cubrir be another possibility?


----------



## JackInMadrid

Hey thanks Jellby

Don't think of the third as "... for which ... for"
"to provide for" is a compound form verb + preposition
It's like a single verb

Jack


----------



## mhp

JackInMadrid said:


> Hey thanks Jellby
> 
> Don't think of the third as "... for which ... for"
> "to provide for" is a compound form verb + preposition
> It's like a single verb
> 
> Jack


----------



## geostan

JackInMadrid said:


> Hey thanks Jellby
> 
> Don't think of the third as "... for which ... for"
> "to provide for" is a compound form verb + preposition
> It's like a single verb
> 
> Jack



That's true, but it is an awkward sentence.


----------



## mhp

geostan said:


> That's true, but it is an awkward sentence.


What's awkward about it? 

Why should I give up?

Try to remove "up"  from the end without replacing the verb+prep "give up" with something like quit.

Why up should I give?


----------



## Jellby

JackInMadrid said:


> Don't think of the third as "... for which ... for"
> "to provide for" is a compound form verb + preposition
> It's like a single verb



Yes that's what I think: to "provide for" something, so I would say: "... needs which only technology can provide for". Would one say "to provide for for something?"


----------



## Ivy29

JackInMadrid said:


> Hola
> Yo no puedo traducir "for which" en las siguientes oraciónes. ¿Alguien pueda ayudarme?
> 
> There are no problems for which there are no solutions
> 
> *No hay problemas para los cuales no haya/hay soluciones*
> 
> It is a question for which there is no reply
> 
> *Es una pregunta para la cual no hay respuesta*
> 
> There are needs for which only technology can provide for
> *Hay necesidades para las cuales sólo la tecnología puede satisfacer*
> 
> Mis traducciónes son:
> No hay problems para los que no hay soluciónes
> Es una pregunta para el que no hay una respuesta
> Hay necesidades para los que tecnología puede proveer solomente<<<
> 
> Ivy29


----------



## JackInMadrid

Jellby said:


> Yes that's what I think: to "provide for" something, so I would say: "... needs which only technology can provide for". Would one say "to provide for for something?"



No, you don't need to repeat "for"
Example:
We need to provide for these people
These people are provided for

--------


Ivy29 said:


> JackInMadrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hola
> Yo no puedo traducir "for which" en las siguientes oraciónes. ¿Alguien pueda ayudarme?
> 
> There are no problems for which there are no solutions
> 
> *No hay problemas para los cuales no haya/hay soluciones*
> 
> It is a question for which there is no reply
> 
> *Es una pregunta para la cual no hay respuesta*
> 
> There are needs for which only technology can provide for
> *Hay necesidades para las cuales sólo la tecnología puede satisfacer*
> 
> Mis traducciónes son:
> No hay problems para los que no hay soluciónes
> Es una pregunta para el que no hay una respuesta
> Hay necesidades para los que tecnología puede proveer solomente<<<
> 
> Ivy29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Ivy
> 
> Jack
Click to expand...


----------



## Jellby

JackInMadrid said:


> No, you don't need to repeat "for"
> Example:
> We need to provide for these people
> These people are provided for



That's why I see "... for which ... can provide for" as a weird sentence.


----------



## JackInMadrid

Jellby said:


> That's why I see "... for which ... can provide for" as a weird sentence.



"for which" here is  a construction that means "that" (in this context)

So...
There are needs that we haven't provided for
= There are needs for which we haven't provided for

The two "for"s are not logically linked. There is no repetition

Hope that helps
Jack


----------



## Ivy29

JackInMadrid said:


> thanks mhp
> You've made me realise that "for which" can often be translated as "that" or "of which"
> 
> In fact there is use of "for which" that doesn't translate in this way. Where some sort of "possession" is implied.
> For example
> I have a question for which the standard reply isn't sufficient
> I have a data request for which the reply lacks some information
> 
> Could I use "whose"??
> Tengo una pregunta cuya respuesta no es sufficiente ( *no ha sido suficiente*) Otherwise the question would be no necessary. You have a question about something in the immediate past
> Tengo una petición para datos cuya respuesta falta información ( same here)*Tengo una petición de datos cuya respuesta le ha faltado algo de información.*
> 
> The preposition PARA según KANY tiene en América equivalencia ''DE'', ''EN'' 'MÁS', La cholita le parió un niño PARA Don Gómez (de). el mayordomo está para el campo ( EN). El uso de CUYO como puro relativo, sin sentido POSESIVO es IMPROPIO. se casó Bill Gates con una colombiana, de cuyo suceso  se hablará en otro lugar de este diario. LO CORREcto=DEL CUAL se hablará . Las frases en INGLÉS deben ser con WHOSE no con 'for which'.
> 
> Ivy29


----------



## Jellby

JackInMadrid said:


> "for which" here is  a construction that means "that" (in this context)



But you usually replace "that" with "which" and not "for which"...

There are problems that have no solution
There are problems which have no solution
There are problems for which have no solution  (unless we add a subject before "have", but that would change the meaning).


----------



## JackInMadrid

Ivy, are you trying to apply Spanish grammar to English grammar?

Native speakers. Perhaps I'm wrong, could you confirm whether or not the  following is correct?
"I am sending a network message to your server for which the reply is incorrect"

This is the sentence which originally triggered me posting this question.

Thanks
Jack


----------



## Ivy29

JackInMadrid said:


> No, you don't need to repeat "for"
> Example:
> We need to provide for these people
> These people are provided for
> 
> --------
> 
> 
> Ivy29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Ivy
> 
> Jack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DE nada
> Ivy29
Click to expand...


----------



## Ivy29

JackInMadrid said:


> Ivy, are you trying to apply Spanish grammar to English grammar?
> 
> Native speakers. Perhaps I'm wrong, could you confirm whether or not the following is correct?
> "I am sending a network message to your server for which the reply is incorrect"
> 
> This is the sentence which originally triggered me posting this question.
> 
> Thanks
> Jack


 
Spanish and English grammar shared a lot in common. Not too far distant.


----------



## Ivy29

JackInMadrid said:


> Ivy, are you trying to apply Spanish grammar to English grammar?
> 
> Native speakers. Perhaps I'm wrong, could you confirm whether or not the following is correct?
> "I am sending a network message to your server for which the reply is incorrect"
> 
> This is the sentence which originally triggered me posting this question.
> 
> Thanks
> Jack


 
The relative clauses, with FOR WHICH = WHOSE, I have read some of my grammar books and NONE shows FOR WHICH as the relative pronoun just WHOSE, But I would like to read where as a relative clause the FOR WHICH is used.

Thanks
Ivy29


----------



## JackInMadrid

I've been thinking about this and my previous explanations weren't very good, so I'm going to try to re-explain. But it's complicated and I don't know how to explain the grammar exactly. So I have some examples below instead, which hopefully will explain it.


They offer *a* printing service for which a modest fee is charged
They charge a modest fee for their printing service
For their printing service, they charge a modest fee

it returns *a *set of values for which no logical order exists
no logical order exists for this set of values
for this set of values, there is no logical order

Plagued by *a* grammar question for which you can't find an answer?
I can't find an answer for this grammar question
For this granmmar question, I cannot find an answer

I am a member of *a *site for which a small subscription fee is charged
I pay a small subscription for this site
For this site I pay a modest fee

I am sending *a *network message for which the reply is incorrect
The reply is incorrect for the message that I'm sending
For the message that I am sending, the reply is incorrect

You will notice that when using "for which" we are talking about an indefinite object and for the other forms a definite object.
Also I realise not all of them are the preferred choice, it's just to illustrate.

That's the only way I know how to explain it.

Jack


----------



## Ivy29

JackInMadrid said:


> I've been thinking about this and my previous explanations weren't very good, so I'm going to try to re-explain. But it's complicated and I don't know how to explain the grammar exactly. So I have some examples below instead, which hopefully will explain it.
> 
> 
> They offer *a* printing service for which a modest fee is charged
> They charge a modest fee for their printing service
> For their printing service, they charge a modest fee
> 
> it returns *a *set of values for which no logical order exists
> no logical order exists for this set of values
> for this set of values, there is no logical order
> 
> Plagued by *a* grammar question for which you can't find an answer?
> I can't find an answer for this grammar question
> For this granmmar question, I cannot find an answer
> 
> I am a member of *a *site for which a small subscription fee is charged
> I pay a small subscription for this site
> For this site I pay a modest fee
> 
> I am sending *a *network message for which the reply is incorrect
> The reply is incorrect for the message that I'm sending
> For the message that I am sending, the reply is incorrect
> 
> You will notice that when using "for which" we are talking about an indefinite object and for the other forms a definite object.
> Also I realise not all of them are the preferred choice, it's just to illustrate.
> 
> That's the only way I know how to explain it.
> 
> Jack


 
Then you are using  a clause of purpose ( adverbial clauses) not a relative clause ( adjective) but yet I do not find in OXFORD that pattern ( FOR WHICH) as purpose.

In the relative ones there is a chapter  OBJECT of a preposition 
The music TO WHICH we listened last night  was good
The music which we listened to last night  was good.

Sorry Jack to bother you about this clarification

Ivy29


----------



## mhp

Jellby said:


> Yes that's what I think: to "provide for" something, so I would say: "... needs which only technology can provide for". Would one say "to provide for for something?"


Yes Jellby, you are right in your examples. But let’s go back to the original sentence and the idiomatic use of “*need for something*” and the phrasal verb “*to provide for*”. Consider the sentence: 

  1) A child’s need for affection is provided for by his parents.
  2) A child has certain *needs for <things> which* only his parents can *provide for*.

  You can also say:
  3) A child has certain *needs which* only his parents can *provide for*.

  Sentences (2) and (3) are close in meaning. Sentence (3) directly addresses the needs of the child. Sentence (2) addresses things for which a child has a need.


----------



## Jellby

mhp said:


> Yes Jellby, you are right in your examples. But let’s go back to the original sentence and the idiomatic use of “*need for something*” and the phrasal verb “*to provide for*”. Consider the sentence:
> 
> 1) A child’s need for affection is provided for by his parents.
> 2) A child has certain *needs for which* only his parents can *provide for*.



Well, from a foreigner's point of view it seems like something is missing there, or like it's saying "the need for a need"... I would be happier with something like:

A child has a need for certain things only his parents can provide for.

But who am I to tell what's right or wrong in English?


----------



## mhp

Jellby said:


> Well, from a foreigner's point of view it seems like something is missing there, or like it's saying "the need for a need"... I would be happier with something like:
> 
> A child has a need for certain things only his parents can provide for.
> 
> But who am I to tell what's right or wrong in English?


  Your sentence is perfect, as always. I was only trying to explain why there are two for’s in the sentence.


----------



## Jellby

Jellby said:


> A child has a need for certain things *(which)* only his parents can provide for.



Just to make it clear that I would understand the "which" here, but not omitting "certain things" and making the "a need" into "certain needs". If you say "a need for something, you need that "something", while "which" would refer to the need, but not to the "something" missing. At least that's how I see it.


----------



## mhp

Jellby said:


> Just to make it clear that I would understand the "which" here, but not omitting "certain things" and making the "a need" into "certain needs". If you say "a need for something, you need that "something", while "which" would refer to the need, but not to the "something" missing. At least that's how I see it.



 I see what you mean. And you are right! 

But it is interesting that when I first read the sentence I had no problem understanding it.


----------



## Patriccke

That's certainly because the missing word was something. With a more precise word, it appears more clearly.

_ A child’s need for affection is provided for by his parents.
_ -> _The answer for my questions are looked for by my parents.

 A child has certain needs for which only his parents can provide for.
_ ->_ I have questions for which only my parents can look for  _Sounds bad. Looks like my parents look for questions!

I would say:_ I have questions that only my parents can find an answer for_ (is it correct?)
 ->_ A child has certain needs that only his parents can provide for_


----------



## Rebis

> In fact there is use of "for which" that doesn't translate in this way. Where some sort of "possession" is implied.
> 
> I have a question for which the standard reply isn't sufficient
> 
> 
> Tengo una pregunta cuya respuesta no es sufficiente
> Tengo una pregunta para la que la respuesta típica no basta.


----------



## Patriccke

Replacing "answer for" with "answer to", is what I said correct?


----------



## JackInMadrid

Patriccke said:


> Replacing "answer for" with "answer to", is what I said correct?



"Answer for" is the only correct one here.

And a little extra on "to answer":

to answer,
to answer for
to answer to
Each has a different meaning

to answer = to respond to a question
I answered the question
I have to give an answer to my boss

to answer for something = to take responsibility for something
You'll answer for the evil things you've done!

to answer to somebody = to report to somebody (to be subordinate to somebody)
In my new role I answer to the managing director

Jack


----------



## Patriccke

Thanks for the explanations 

Actually I had completely misunderstood Rubis's post


----------



## Rebis

My last post means that the translation of 
"I have a question for which the standard reply isn't sufficient" 
is not "Tengo una pregunta cuya respuesta no es sufficiente"
but "Tengo una pregunta para la que la respuesta típica no basta"

ok?


----------



## jdenson

JackInMadrid said:


> Ivy, are you trying to apply Spanish grammar to English grammar?
> 
> Native speakers. Perhaps I'm wrong, could you confirm whether or not the  following is correct?
> "I am sending a network message to your server for which the reply is incorrect"
> 
> This is the sentence which originally triggered me posting this question.
> 
> Thanks
> Jack


Since the phrase, "for which the reply is incorrect" modifies "a network message" and not "server", I would write:
I'm sending, to your server, a network message for which the reply is incorrect.
JD


----------

