# Didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping



## EdisonBhola

Context: The weather was bad, but Peter still decided to go shopping.

The bad weather didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping in any way.

 Are both choices okay?

Many thank!


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

I think that, of the two, the latter is preferable: _'The bad weather didn't change his mind about going shopping (in any way).'_


----------



## pob14

I think it's not only preferable, I think "didn't change his mind to go shopping" is _wrong_.


----------



## wandle

It is the person who changes his or her own mind, though.
We should say 'He did not change his mind because of the weather'.
'In any way' is not very appropriate, since a change of mind (a reversal of a decision) is a categorical event that either happens or does not.


----------



## EdisonBhola

Will "change his mind about going shopping" be wrongly interpret as "change his opinion of going shopping"?


----------



## wandle

'He changed his mind' means 'he reversed his decision'.

Thus 'He changed his mind about going shopping' means 'He reversed his decision in relation to going shopping'.

Thus if his first decision was not to go shopping, then 'He changed his mind about going shopping' means that he decided after all that he would go shopping.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

wandle said:


> It is the person who changes his or her own mind, though.
> We should say 'He did not change his mind because of the weather'.
> 'In any way' is not very appropriate, since a change of mind (a reversal of a decision) is a categorical event that either happens or does not.



I think this is a somewhat finicking distinction. It's very standard in ordinary discourse to talk of external factors changing our minds.


----------



## wandle

I think it is an important distinction, as it shows that humans, not external factors, make decisions.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

That's more a philosophical consideration than a linguistic one. You surely don't deny that it's perfectly standard to talk in the way that I suggested in post#7, do you?


----------



## wandle

The phrase is recognised in dictionaries as 'to change one's mind', which means it is the person concerned who does so.


----------



## pob14

Did you always feel this way, wandle, or did something change your mind?

(If it's not obvious, my post is a [perhaps] slightly humorous way of saying that I find this version more fluent than "did something cause you to change your mind?")

But I doubt this post will change anyone's mind.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

That's not what's in contention here, is it?  "I used to be a Cartesian dualist until Skinner changed my mind." < --- People say things like this, don't they, wandle? _(Cross-posted pob14 does)_


----------



## gramman

>>'He changed his mind' means 'he reversed his decision'.

If he can't "change his mind to go shopping," does that mean he can't "reverse his decision" to do so? If that's the case, he'd better bring an umbrella. 

And if a change of mind "is a categorical event that either happens or does not," why do people say that they have _completely_ changed their mind?


----------



## wandle

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> That's not what's in contention here, is it?  "I used to be a Cartesian dualist until Skinner changed my mind." < --- People say things like this, don't they, wandle? _(Cross-posted pob14 does)_


People say all sorts of things, not all of which are appropriate, to say the least.
*EdisonBhola *wanted to know if both his sentences were okay.
I have pointed out one reason why neither is okay.

The following dictionaries cite it as 'change one's mind', which shows the meaning of the phrase is that the change is made by the person referred to.

OED online
*change one's mind*:    _adopt a different opinion or plan.
_
WordRef 
6. *opinion or sentiment.*... _to change one's mind
_
ChambersHarrap
*change one's mind or tune*:   _to adopt a different intention or opinion._


----------



## wandle

gramman said:


> If he can't "change his mind to go shopping," does that mean he can't "reverse his decision" to do so? If that's the case, he'd better bring an umbrella.


 What is this referring to?


> And if a change of mind "is a categorical event that either happens or does not," why do people say that they have _completely_ changed their mind?


People may have more than one thing in their mind.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> I think it is an important distinction, as it shows that humans, not external factors, make decisions.


This is only true within a certain philosophical framework. (Actor-network theory, for instance, assumes that many actants, both humans and non-humans, contribute to any given decision.) So you're universalizing without proof or argument, and then assuming that grammar will reflect your view of the world's "logical" structure.

In practice, we can say that events, circumstances, other people, and even things "changed my mind." Is this shorthand for "made me change my mind"? You can think of it that way if you prefer. But it's not important.


----------



## gramman

>>What is this referring to?

Sorry, I got confused (again). I confused your first post with pob14's first. This leads me ask you, pob14, what you find wrong with "didn't change his mind to go shopping"?

As others have observed, it looks like there's really not much of a disagreement here. I'm willing to concede that external factors _cause_ people to change their mind, and that, as lucas-sp suggests, we can perhaps view the OP's wording as a shorthand version of:

_The bad weather didn't (cause him to) change his mind …_

As the story goes, when Churchill was meeting with Roosevelt at the Quebec Conference, he sent a cable to Lord Keynes: "Am coming around to your point of view." His Lordship replied, "Sorry to hear it. Have started to change my mind."


----------



## Myridon

gramman said:


> what you find wrong with "didn't change his mind *to go shopping*"?


The problem for me is that I wouldn't use "change one's mind to something" to mean this.  It seems to me his mind has been turned into "go shopping."  Compare to: The drugs changed his mind to mush.  The warm weather changed the snow to slush.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Myridon said:


> The problem for me is that I wouldn't use "change one's mind to something" to mean this.  It seems to me his mind has been turned into "go shopping."  Compare to: The drugs changed his mind to mush.  The warm weather changed the snow to slush.


 That's almost a poem.


----------



## pob14

I agree with Myridon.


----------



## gramman

>>It seems to me his mind has been turned into "go shopping."  

Isn't this simply confusing two definitions of _change_:

to _become_ different, or _to make someone or something_ different

And what about:
_
She changed into her costume.

I changed to the Victoria line._


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> This is only true within a certain philosophical framework. (Actor-network theory, for instance, assumes that many actants, both humans and non-humans, contribute to any given decision.) So you're universalizing without proof or argument, and then assuming that grammar will reflect your view of the world's "logical" structure.


This is taking the point out of context (and inventing a non-existent quote - yet again). 
The intention is not to advocate a philosophical view, but to show the correct usage of the phrase 'change one's mind'.
To show the context, let me resume the steps.


EdisonBhola said:


> The bad weather didn't change his mind





wandle said:


> It is the person who changes his or her own mind, though.


In other words: 'that is what the phrase, correctly understood, means'.


Beryl from Northallerton said:


> I think this is a somewhat finicking distinction. It's very standard in ordinary discourse to talk of external factors changing our minds.


What is the 'distinction' here?  It is the distinction between (a) saying that the phrase applies only to changing one's own mind and (b) saying that it can refer to external factors changing someone's mind. This is about the use of the term.


wandle said:


> I think it is an important distinction, as it shows that humans, not external factors, make decisions.


In saying 'shows', I did not mean that language determines reality (though I do consider it a significant reflection or aspect of reality). My point here is about the meaning of the phrase. With a little more care, I might have said, _'By maintaining that the phrase correctly applies only to changing one's own mind, we see that it shows humans, not external factors, making decisions. That is what the phrase 'change one's mind' means'. _

(Now, granted, the fact that it means that does not prove that only humans make decisions. Nevertheless, the language of decision-making in ordinary usage does mean that it is a capacity of human persons and not of impersonal factors. This again is a point about language, and how to use it correctly: and again, it is not an attempt to make language prove reality.)


----------



## EdisonBhola

We are going off topic...
So it's wrong to say "change his mind to go shopping"?
And "change his mind about going shopping" is the correct one?


----------



## gramman

If we are off-topic, I apologize and await a moderator's ruling. I can understand your desire for an answer, but I'd say we are, in fact, seeking just that. We probably all agree that "change his mind about going shopping" is acceptable, and we're endeavouring to decide if the other option is.





wandle said:


> What is the 'distinction' here?  It is the distinction between (a) saying that the phrase applies only to changing one's own mind and (b) saying that it can refer to external factors changing someone's mind. This is about the use of the term.


I struggle to comprehend this. That doesn't mean it's not a valid and lucidly presented thought. But I'm not at all sure what you're saying.

Let me ask, do you think external factors can change someone's mind? (Forgive me if you feel you've made it clear that you don't.) I expect we all agree that the person whose mind is changed is certainly involved in the process. But can part of the definition of change — _*to make* someone or something different _— be applied here? Can external factors *make* someone change his or her mind? Not in the sense of _forcing_ change, but rather _causing_ it.

Let me introduce another concept: (_revise) *his thinking*_. Can external events be the causal factor there? If so, can "his thinking" be seen as a reasonable substitute in this context for "his mind"?


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

EdisonBhola said:


> We are going off topic...
> So it's wrong to say "change his mind to go shopping"?
> And "change his mind about going shopping" is the correct one?


>We are going off topic... 
It's conceivable.

>So it's wrong to say "change his mind to go shopping"?
See post #3 (I agree with post#3)

>And "change his mind about going shopping" is the correct one?
See post #2


----------



## wandle

EdisonBhola said:


> The bad weather didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping in any way.
> Are both choices okay?


Sorry, but they are both incorrect. It is *he*, not the weather, that changes (or does not change) his mind. 


gramman said:


> Let me ask, do you think external factors can change someone's mind?


This is not really what it is about.


The point is that the basic expression is *'to change one's mind' *(see the dictionary citations in post 14).
The *meaning* of this English expression is that it is *the person *concerned who changes his or her own mind.

This is not a philosophical position. It does not mean that external factors cannot influence a decision. It simply means that the *expression* 'to change one's mind' applies only to *a person* changing his or her own decision or intention or opinion.

It is a limited point of language, showing the meaning of this particular phrase.


----------



## EdisonBhola

Using your reason, can I then say "he changed his mind to go shopping"?  





wandle said:


> Sorry, but they are both incorrect. It is *he*, not the weather, that changes (or does not change) his mind.
> 
> This is not really what it is about.
> 
> 
> The point is that the basic expression is *'to change one's mind' *(see the dictionary citations in post 14).
> The *meaning* of this English expression is that it is *the person *concerned who changes his or her own mind.
> 
> This is not a philosophical position. It does not mean that external factors cannot influence a decision. It simply means that the *expression* 'to change one's mind' applies only to *a person* changing his or her own decision or intention or opinion.
> 
> It is a limited point of language, showing the meaning of this particular phrase.


----------



## wandle

EdisonBhola said:


> Using your reason, can I then say "he changed his mind to go shopping"?


No, but you could say: 'He changed his mind, and went shopping'.

Or you could say: 'He changed his mind about going shopping'. (This one does not say that he put his decision into action.)


wandle said:


> 'He changed his mind about going shopping' means 'He reversed his decision in relation to going shopping'.
> 
> Thus if his first decision was not to go shopping, then 'He changed his mind about going shopping' means that he decided after all that he would go shopping.


On the other hand, if his first decision was that he would go shopping, then 'He changed his mind about going shopping' means that he decided after all not to go shopping.


----------



## gramman

I think I made some progress in understanding your position, wandle.You seem to agree that external factors can (leaving language aside) change someone's mind. I think we _all_ agree that it's the _person_ whose mind changes/is changed. So we're taking philosophy and psychology off the table, and discussing how this phrase ("change one's mind") should be handled in sentences.

I thought Beryl found "changed his mind _to go_ shopping" acceptable, but not preferable. Now I see that she agrees that it is "wrong." (not sure why) I do _not_ understand _your_ objection to the example offered by EdisonBhola: "He changed his mind to go shopping." Are you agreeing with Myridon's concern about "his mind hav[ing] been _turned into_ "go shopping"? Here we have what I think you want: "He changed his mind …". Does it matter _how_ he changed his mind or _what_ he changed it to?


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

All we're trying to do here is establish for the benefit poor EdisonBhola (who must be quite confused by now) whether either (or both) of these choices are okay:

The bad weather didn't change his mind about going shopping in any way.
The bad weather didn't change his mind to go going shopping in any way.

We're not very good foreros if we can't briefly assess something so simple and so vague as their 'okay-ness'.
The question boils down to, given those two, would you advise a learner of English to use: one, neither, or both?
There's no need for any further mental cartwheeling. 

Context: The weather was bad, but Peter still decided to go shopping. (This tells that EB has a fairly shrewd idea as to what they are intended to mean.)

Here's my opinion:

The first is a perfectly standard way of informally conveying the information given as 'context'. Most people will understand you, and not give it a second thought.

I'd counsel against using the second. People would probably understand you, but they might see fit to correct you, or worse, have a laugh at your expense. It sounds a bit weird.


----------



## lucas-sp

I agree with Beryl. In short, the correct phrase is "change [someone's] mind about [doing X]." "Change someone's mind" goes with "about" and a gerund.

Using the infinitive with "change someone's mind" is strange.

I think wandle is misunderstanding the use of dictionaries. I would expect "brush *one's* hair" to appear as "brush *one's* hair" in a dictionary; it does not follow that I can only "brush *my* hair"; I can certainly "brush *her* hair" or "brush *its* hair." In other words, the "one's" doesn't mean that one can only do it to oneself. I think it's just in the definition to show that the possessive is used before "mind."


----------



## gramman

>>EdisonBhola (who must be quite confused by now) whether either (or both) of these choices are okay

Well, it may be that the thread was hijacked, or at least diverted to an unintended topic. To the extent that occurred, I am as responsible as anyone and I again apologize. But there was a quick consensus that the second example was acceptable, and considerable objection to the first. With a rewording along the lines suggested about people, rather than anything else, changing minds … there's the answer.


----------



## wandle

What does *EdisonBhola's* original question mean? The sentence choice he proposed was: 


> The bad weather didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping in any way.


The intended meaning for the sentence, if I have understood it correctly, is:

_'The bad weather did not cause him to cancel his planned shopping trip _(implying: _he did go shopping_)'.

My view is that neither of the options he proposed is valid, for several reasons:

(1) the expression 'change his mind' in this context means 'reverse his decision' and only the original decision-maker can reverse the decision (though the weather or other factors may lead him to reverse it);

(2) 'in any way' is in this context an expression of degree meaning 'to any extent'; it would therefore be appropriate with a verb of influencing (_'The bad weather did not deter him in any way from going shopping'_) but not with a verb or phrase expressing decision, since the decision is either made or not;

(3) even with 'he' as subject, the sentence _'He did not change his mind to go shopping'_ is not valid to express the idea _'He did not alter his intention of going shopping'_;

(4) the sentence _'He did not change his mind about going shopping'_ is a valid sentence (see explanation in post 28) but it does not convey two points I believe *EdisonBhola* intended: it does not show (a) what decision had originally been made and it does not imply (b) that the person actually did go shopping.

So how could *EdisonBhola's* original meaning be expressed? My suggestion would be:

_'The bad weather did not deter him in any way from going shopping'_.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I would expect "brush *one's* hair" to appear as "brush *one's* hair" in a dictionary; it does not follow that I can only "brush *my* hair"; I can certainly "brush *her* hair" or "brush *its* hair." In other words, the "one's" doesn't mean that one can only do it to oneself. I think it's just in the definition to show that the possessive is used before "mind."


There is a key difference between 'brush one's hair' and 'change one's mind'. As the dictionary definitions in post 14 show, 'change one's mind' refers to a state of mind: an opinion, decision or view. Only the individual who adopted the opinion, decision or view is in a position to change it. Even if others exert influence to make the individual change his mind, they still do not know that he has done so until he gives them some indication of it.


----------



## gramman

wandle said:


> The bad weather did not deter him in any way from going shopping.


Can someone be _partially_ deterred? Isn't that like a decision that "is either made or not"?

For what it's worth, both "deterred in any way" and "changed his/her/my/your mind in any way" are common expressions.


----------



## wandle

The process of deterring involves two sides and some tension between them. This admits of degrees.

On the other hand, in the present context:


EdisonBhola said:


> Context: The weather was bad, but Peter still decided to go shopping.


'change his mind' refers to a decision.

In other contexts it need not imply a decision.


----------



## gramman

>>The process of deterring involves two sides

Perhaps the process of _deciding_ involves two sides: a person's mind and _the external factors that influence it_.

>>only the original decision-maker can reverse the decision (though the weather or other factors may lead him to reverse it);

Some of think that it's acceptable, and at times preferable, to shorten a thought like, "The bad weather caused him to change his mind" to "The bad weather changed his mind." Can an external factor "change someone's thinking"? Can it change (in the sense of "make different") a person's preferences, habits, motives, etc? These are all internally controlled psychological phenomena.


----------



## gramman

I think this may come down to a point I made earlier: that change can mean both "_become_ different" and "_make_ different." Whether or not someone's mind (decision, thoughts) _becomes_ different is indeed controlled internally, but you agree that external factors _influence_ the process, and so shouldn't you agree that they *change* thoughts and decisions (minds, in this context) by *making them different*.

+++++

Hmm, I may have painted myself into a corner there. I might want to take that back.


----------



## Forero

EdisonBhola said:


> Context: The weather was bad, but Peter still decided to go shopping.
> 
> The bad weather didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping in any way.
> 
> Are both choices okay?
> 
> Many thank!


With _to go_ this sentence seems to say that it is the weather that either did or did not go shopping, which is nonsensical.

With _about going_, the sentence is okay, but I wonder what you mean by "in any way".

Note that "about going shopping" is ambiguous, but its meaning can be inferred from either the context as stated or from our knowledge of people's habits concerning "bad weather".





EdisonBhola said:


> Will "change his mind about going shopping" be wrongly interpret*ed* as "change his opinion of going shopping"?


I would not take it that way without context to support that idea. A bad shopping experience might change his mind about shopping in that sense, but bad weather?


----------



## lucas-sp

Two things.

A) The idiomatic way to follow "change one's mind" is "about [something]." So "She changed her mind about what to do on Sunday," "I changed my mind about calling her," and "He didn't change his mind about going shopping" are all excellent sentences.

B) In contemporary AE, at least, it is possible "to change [someone else's] mind." I could easily imagine a Mafia movie with someone saying "So, Tony doesn't want to pay up? I bet Vinnie [the enforcer] can change his mind about that." In fact, a routine search of Google Books raises lots of results, such as this one from a 1944 edition of Collier's, which suggests that this idiom is not that recent at all:





> "_I'll change his mind_," Stephen said. "There are ways to change the mind of any man, if you have the patience." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ihkfAQAAMAAJ&q=%22I'll+change+his+mind%22&dq=%22I'll+change+his+mind%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NB_xUIHSLYL3igLO0ICABg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw)


I don't understand why some posters are claiming that in English one can only change one's own mind. To me, it is entirely possible to say that someone changed someone else's mind.

It's possible to argue that "to change [someone else's] mind" is shorthand for "to make [someone else] change [his or her] mind." But that doesn't invalidate the point that "to change [someone else's] mind" is indeed an acceptable phrase in English, or at least AE.


----------



## wandle

Post 33 was intended to review those points which were relevant to *EdisonBhola's* enquiry. 
In fact, however, it omitted one which was clearly important to him. That post began as follows:


> What does *EdisonBhola's* original question mean? The sentence choice he proposed was:
> 
> 
> 
> _The bad weather didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping in any way._
> 
> 
> 
> The intended meaning for the sentence, if I have understood it correctly, is:
> _'The bad weather did not cause him to cancel his planned shopping trip _(implying: _he did go shopping_)'.
Click to expand...

Post 33 concluded by saying:


> So how could *EdisonBhola's* original meaning be expressed? My suggestion would be:
> _'The bad weather did not deter him in any way from going shopping'._


However, it appears from *EdisonBhola's* posts 1, 5, 23 and 27 that he wanted if possible a solution which would include the phrase 'change his mind'. In other words, if I have understood his intentions correctly, we can express the main purpose of his enquiry as follows: 

*Please show me how to use the expression 'change his mind' in a sentence which means:
The bad weather did not in any way cause him to reverse the decision he had made to go shopping.*

It is for *EdisonBhola* to say whether this expresses his enquiry correctly. If it does, my answer is (a) that it is possible to say, _'The bad weather did not in any way cause him to change his mind about going shopping'_, but as already pointed out this does not tell us what his first decision was; and (b) that it is possible to say,_ 'The bad weather did not in any way deter him from going shopping'_, which does show what his first decision was, but of course it does not include the phrase 'change his mind'.

If I have understood the original enquiry correctly, part of the problem is that *EdisonBhola* is not familiar with the normal usage of the phrase 'change one's mind': which is presumably why he has enquired about it here. Thus one point of the answer needs to be that 'change his mind' cannot, by means of the sentence options he proposed, express the exact meaning he intended.
Another part of the answer (again, if I have understood the enquiry correctly) is to explain what the normal 
usage of 'change one's mind' is. In order not to expand this part of the answer too far, it makes sense to limit it to the meaning 'reverse one's decision', which was indicated by *EdisonBhola* in the context he provided in post 1:


> Context: The weather was bad, but Peter still decided to go shopping.


In this context, only the person who made the decision is in a position to change it, and therefore, if 'change his mind' is used here, it needs to be 'he', not 'the weather', that changes his mind.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> "I'll change his mind," Stephen said. "There are ways to change the mind of any man, if you have the patience."


This is of course a perfectly possible use of the expression in English, but (a) it belongs to a different context from that provided by *EdisonBhola* and (b) it is not the basic sense of the expression. 

'I'll change his mind' is a derivative use, which depends on the basic understanding that in reality only the individual concerned can change his own mind. If Stephen is asked later whether he succeeded in changing the other's mind, the only way he can establish it is by saying something like, 'Oh yes, it didn't take long. He signed the paper in less than five minutes.' 
The reality is that even the most efficient enforcer or torturer does not actually know whether the other person has changed his mind until that person says so, or gives some other indication of it, and they will of course keep the pressure on until that happens, and in fact until the victim shows it beyond doubt. 

One important principle in language learning is to start with the basic sense of an expression and not to introduce derivative or extended meanings until the basic meaning has been established.
Therefore, while the expression 'I'll change his mind' is valid, it is not appropriate to *EdisonBhola's* context and it is not really helpful to put it before someone whose need is to learn the basic sense first of all.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

So, could the weather change someone's mind, wandle? Would that be perfectly possible use of the expression in English?


----------



## wandle

Well, in my view (as mentioned several times), not in the context of *EdisonBhola's* enquiry, since that is about the reversal of Peter's decision and a _reversal_ can only be done by the original decision-maker.

In fact, it would not in my view be good English, generally speaking: though it is quite comprehensible.
And the construction of 'Did not change his mind to go shopping' would generally be wrong, with or without an impersonal subject.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

> ... though it is quite comprehensible.


So, what does it mean to you? (_'the weather changed someone's mind'_)


----------



## wandle

That would need more context and it seems to be going off topic.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Feel free to answer.


----------



## wandle

I feel it needs at least a sentence for context.
For example, if someone said, 'He had meant to go shopping, but the weather changed his mind' I would still regard it as bad English, but I would understand it as 'he changed his mind because of the weather'.


----------



## Forero

I don't believe we have to take "to change one's mind" as a fixed expression. The mind includes the opinion, but it is bigger than that. Anything that changes what a person sees or feels makes a change in their mind.

Of course bad weather can put a person in a different frame of mind. People with arthritis and people with seasonal affective disorder are especially susceptible.

So we might say he'd a mind to go shopping, and that bad weather did not change that. But "his mind to go shopping" does not conjure up the special meaning that "a mind to go shopping" does. I reject the "to go" version of the sentence in question.

And to be fair I find the "about going" version rather vague, even without the misplaced "in any way". I recommend Wandle's "did not deter" sentence for the sake of clarity.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> 'I'll change his mind' is a derivative use, which depends on the basic understanding that in reality only the individual concerned can change his own mind.


Nope, still don't buy it.

A) You would need to prove historically that "change [one's own] mind" came first and was then given another possible meaning: "change [another's] mind." That would be difficult.

B) As of now, your "evidence" for the primacy of "change [one's own] mind" comes from the idea that only you can change your mind. That rests on a whole mess of assumptions about psychology, subjectivity, choice, etc., none of which are necessarily true or convincing. (A few things: Sometimes a person doesn't know that s/he has changed her/his mind until after other people do. We aren't always the masters of ourselves and our own decisions. It is possible to convince or coerce someone else - or seduce or persuade or cajole or strong-arm or move to...) Isn't it easier to say that there are situations going back to the dawn of human existence in which people change their own minds, and in which people change the minds of other people, and we can't tell which one "comes first," and both of those situations are covered by the phrase "change [a person's] mind"? 

As it is, "change [another's] mind" to me is just as valid as "change [one's own] mind," and I don't accept that either one is derivative. And I don't think it's any more difficult to understand the meaning and use of one of them as it is to understand the meaning and use of the other.

Here's another example: 





> His drawings weren't that great, but the story meant a lot to me because I had to leave my dog behind when we moved. I still missed her and didn't want to get a new pet. Jeremy's _story changed my mind_. (http://books.google.com/books?id=zHF1oBl0suYC&q=%22story+changed+my+mind%22&dq=%22story+changed+my+mind%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CY7xUJcdh6qIAtLSgZgH&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ)


I see nothing wrong with the sentence:

The weather didn't change his mind about going shopping. .

Perhaps I would prefer it to be:

Even the awful weather couldn't change his mind about going shopping.

... since in that sentence there's a stronger contrast. I think it's very patronizing that you don't think a student is going to be able to use sentences with "change [someone else's] mind" just because they're so ridiculously difficult. The only person here who seems to have extreme difficulty with the phrase "change [someone else's] mind" is you, wandle.


----------



## wandle

With a metaphor, it is not necessary to know the history of the term in order to see that the metaphor is an extended use derived from a more literal sense. This is about the meaning of language.

It is also seems to me that the additional meanings under debate fall outside the original topic.


----------



## lucas-sp

Where is there a metaphor? I read a sentence like "She changed his mind" quite literally: he thought one thing, and then she ensured that he thought something else.

Also, your notion that metaphors are secondary is not necessarily correct. A quick glance at linguistics or theory of language will show you that many theorists consider "metaphorical" uses of language to be more original; over time "literal" uses are standardized out of earlier "metaphorical" applications. Perhaps the most famous argument about the foundational role of metaphor in language is Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie..."


----------



## wandle

I must respectfully decline further extravagation.
I have nothing to add to my comments on *EdisonBhola's* enquiry: unless he indicates that I misunderstood it.


----------



## lucas-sp

Then let's just agree that:

A) In English, it is entirely possible to say that "[an agent] changes [someone else's] mind about [something]." The agent need not be a person: "A story" can change my mind, "The rain" can change his mind, "Vinne the Enforcer" can change her mind.

B) This use of "change [someone's] mind" is not a metaphor.

C) Compared to understanding the use of the phrase "to change [one's own] mind," there's nothing inherently more difficult about understanding the use of the phrase "to change [someone else's] mind."

D) This sentence is not incorrect, although it might be more effectively phrased (as could all sentences, for that matter): "The weather didn't change his mind about going shopping."


----------



## lucas-sp

Hey-ho, I looked at the OED. Here's one of their examples:





> ?1515   W. Harrington _Commendations of Matrimony_ sig. A iii. v,   Yf so be that the sender of the letters do not chaunge theyr minde.


Perhaps this is debatable, since I can't find a copy of the _Commendations_ online, but it seems that here "the sender" is changing the minds of "them," all the way back in 1515.


----------



## gramman

>>can't find a copy of the _Commendations_ online

I had no luck with that either, but I did find another reference:





> And for iust profe hereof, marke what I tell is true, _Some dismold daye shall chaunge his minde_, and make him seeke a new. — from George Gascoigne's The Refusal of a Lover, in Hundreth Sundrie Flowres (1573), on poetryclub.com.ua.


_Dismold_ is an archaic version of _dismal_, as defined by the OED and listed on a site published by the English Department at the University of Georgia.


----------



## wandle

There is nothing in the examples from Harrington and Gascoigne, or related discussion, relevant to the topic question, since they do not deal with 'change his mind' in the sense of reversing a decision.


EdisonBhola said:


> Context: The weather was bad, but Peter still decided to go shopping.
> The bad weather didn't change his mind to go/about going shopping in any way.
> Are both choices okay?
> Many thank!


Only the original decision-maker is in a position to reverse a decision.
The weather cannot do so, since it did not make it in the first place.


----------



## gramman

>>Only the original decision-maker is in a position to reverse a decision.

And in Refusal, Gascoigne believes that his rival, the guy who decided to marry that girl, will reverse his decision, and that _a dismal day will *make him* change his mind_.

change: to _become_ different, or _*to make* someone or *something*_* different*

His original decision could _become_ different, or it could _be_ _made_ different.


----------



## lucas-sp

Yeah, I still don't buy it. Vinnie the Enforcer certainly reverses Tony's decision not to pay his protection money; the letter-writer in the OED is certainly trying to reverse the decision "they" have made; Gascoigne thinks that the weather will reverse his rival's decision to marry his beloved.

There are lots of times when something is changed by an agent other than the agent who had originally created that thing: editors re-work articles, time erodes the paint on the Last Supper, humans dam rivers and breed fancy pigeons. And this, of course, _assumes that the person who has resolved to do something reached that resolution entirely by him- or herself_. To me, that assumption is untenable - perhaps he was only inspired to decide to go shopping because the weather report was so favorable, or he only decided to go shopping because he suddenly found out it was his new boyfriend's birthday and he wanted to cook him a nice meal.

This series of claims:





> There is nothing in the examples from Harrington and Gascoigne, or related discussion, relevant to the topic question, since they do not deal with 'change his mind' in the sense of reversing a decision.
> 
> Only the original decision-maker is in a position to reverse a decision.
> 
> The weather cannot do so, since it did not make it in the first place.


... to me, is trying to split hairs where there are simply no hairs to split. (A. The examples given _do_ deal with reversing decisions, and use "change [someone else's] mind" to express that idea. B. Someone who has made a decision can certainly be persuaded/forced/etc. to alter that decision; this is why Plato was so suspicious of Gorgias and his art of rhetoric. C. The fact that a decision has been reached does not prove that the decision-maker is entirely responsable for that decision - after all, we do not ever know our own minds. So D. The weather certainly can change a mind that it did not originally make.)

I'm reminded of another collocation in English: to "decide [someone else]," as in:





> 1827   R. Southey _Select. Lett._ (1856) IV. 463   This ‘Tasso’ came in good time to decide me in a matter upon which I was hesitating. (OED)


Here it was a reading which changed the author's mind in the sense of "causing him to come to an original decision." Certainly a later reading could change his mind in some other way.


----------



## wandle

gramman said:


> And in Refusal, Gascoigne believes that his rival, the guy who decided to marry that girl, will reverse his decision, and that _a dismal day will *make him* change his mind_


As I read it, _'Some dismold daye shall chaunge his minde'_ means 'there will come a day, dismal to you, when he will no longer love you': it is about a change of feeling, not about decision.


----------



## wandle

The key is the idea underlying the original post: that the weather might be thought to reverse Peter's decision. 
That is my reading of *EdisonBhola's* enquiry and suggested use of 'change his mind'. 
It is for him to say if that reading is correct or not.


----------



## gramman

I'd say that interpretation is clearly inconsistent with the context provided by the previous sentence:





> And for iust profe hereof, marke what I tell is true, Some dismold daye shall chaunge his minde, and make him seeke a new.


It's not:_ He_, on some dismal day, shall change his mind. 

It's: "_Some dismal day_ (i.e., an unspecified day in the future) shall change his mind."

On a very narrow point, I don't think _dismal_ refers to the weather here, and I think she'd already married the other guy — could be wrong.


----------



## lucas-sp

For me the line should be paraphrased as "Some fateful day will change his mind; he loves you now but some encounter will change his mind and make him pick a new beloved."

I'm sensitive to wandle's desire to distinguish between affects and articulated thoughts; however, I think that "change [someone else's] mind" can certainly be used to discuss a change in articulated thoughts. It seems like in the example about deciding not to get a dog and then having your mind changed (post #50) this is clearly the case.

In Christian theology, for instance, nobody can convert themselves; it's always an exterior agent (God, God's grace) that "changes someone's mind" and makes them reverse their ideas about religion etc. So in the philosophical tradition there is at least one well-documented case where reason - not just affect - can only be moved by outside compulsion.


----------



## wandle

It is a common poetic device to say that a day will do or cause some event, meaning that the event will happen on that day. The poet does not mean that the day will be the real cause of the event.
To enlarge the context a little:


> ...... thou  lovest  him,  that  never  loved  thee.
> And  for  just  profe  hereof,  marke  what  I  tell  is  true,
> Some  dismold  daye  shall  chaunge  his  minde,  and  make  him  seeke  a  new.


What he wants to prove is that the other never really loved her. Therefore he is unable to say that his 'love' will change. Thus he speaks of his 'mind' instead.  The idea is that his attentions will switch to someone new.  
It is not so much about decision: more about the lack of it and of the constancy which might result from decision.

(The change of mind in the dog example in post 50 is about wanting a dog.)


----------



## gramman

>>It is a common poetic device … meaning that the event will happen on that day. _The poet does not  mean that the day will be the real cause of the event.
_
I'm certainly no student of poetry. Can you offer any evidence of this?

Deciding to get a new dog, if possible, should, in my opinion, be seen as a most fundamental element of common sense. ☺


----------



## Cagey

The discussion has gone beyond the original language question, and now deals with questions that are interesting, but are beyond resolution in this forum.  

The thread is now closed. Thank you all for your participation. 

Cagey, moderator.


----------

