# making up the additional costs <incurred>



## kansi

We have had some clients say, ‘we’re not suspending but we’d be really happy if you guys slowed down’, and we have other clients who are outright telling us, ‘where you were going to bill us $100 this month ... we want you now to make sure you are going to cap this at $50’,” says Bishoy Azmy, chief executive of Dubai-based Al Shafar General Contracting.

Contractors incur extra costs and face delays due to Covid-19

However, in terms of making up the additional costs *incurred*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.

Is incur a more versitile, over-view word to mean to run into get or something unpleasant, comparing to just to run into something unpleasant or to get something unpleasant?

Does the word sound formal?


----------



## Barque

"Incur" doesn't necessarily refer to something unpleasant. It means, roughly, "to become subject to" but it's used in specific contexts, such as in relation to costs or obligations. Neither of those are things people enjoy incurring, so I suppose you could call that unpleasant if you liked, though that isn't how it'd usually be described.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> though that isn't how it'd usually be described


how do people usually describe that?

And so there are something incured that people would enjoy or feel pleasant?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> ow do people usually describe that?


I was saying people don't necessarily describe incurring costs or obligations using the word "unpleasant", though it's possible. How you'd describe it depends on context.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> I was saying people don't necessarily describe incurring costs or obligations using the word "unpleasant", though it's possible. How you'd describe it depends on context.


I see..at least something incurred is always bad?


----------



## kansi

It's wrong to say this instead although it means same to the original?
However, in terms of making up the additional costs *aquired*/*run into*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.

[Edited to remove quote of now-deleted post.  DonnyB - moderator]


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> I see..at least something incurred is always bad?


Usually something the  person incurring them can do without/wouldn't be excited about.



kansi said:


> However, in terms of making up the additional costs *aquired*/*run into*,


"A*c*quired" doesn't fit there. "Run up" could work, though a little informal, but not "run into".


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> A*c*quired" doesn't fit there. "Run up" could work, though a little informal, but not "run into".


What about experienced?
does this also sound not great?
However, in terms of making up the additional costs *experienced*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.


----------



## heypresto

No, you don't _experience _a cost. You _incur_ a cost.


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> No, you don't _experience _a cost. You _incur_ a cost.


When we incur a cost, do "we" need to pay the cost or do we have someone pay the cost?

In that context, simply saying the additional costs *costed *seems working. Does it work?
If so, there is a slight difference between that "cost" and the original "incur" between meaning or nuance, right?


----------



## Andygc

The answer is in dictionaries, Collins, for example:
to make *oneself* subject to (something undesirable); bring upon *oneself*


----------



## kansi

Andygc said:


> The answer is in dictionaries, Collins, for example:
> to make *oneself* subject to (something undesirable); bring upon *oneself*


Okay, I see.
❶(the original)
However, in terms of making up the additional costs *incurred*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.

❷(replaced incurred with brought upon)
However, in terms of making up the additional costs *brought upon*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.

❸(replaced incurred with subject to)
However, in terms of making up the additional costs *subject to*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.
(this use of subject to, modifing a noun right before it, is possible?)

❶ ❷ and ❸ have all the same meanings or they have slightly different meanings?


----------



## Andygc

No. Your 2 and 3 are, simply, wrong. 
Brought upon _who_?
Subject to _what_?

The word that has the required meaning is "incurred". Trying to change it is pointless.


----------



## kansi

Andygc said:


> No. Your 2 and 3 are, simply, wrong.
> Brought upon _who_?
> Subject to _what_?
> 
> The word that has the required meaning is "incurred". Trying to change it is pointless.


So even though you said incur (in that context) means to make subject to or bring upon, incur (in that context), make subject to or bring upon have (slightly) different meanings so only incur fits in the context?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> So even though you said incur (in that context) means to make subject to or bring upon, incur (in that context), make subject to or bring upon have (slightly) different meanings so only incur fits in the context?


Yes. It's not that they have different meanings; it's that they can't just replace "incur" when you put them in that sentence. You'd have to reword the entire sentence.

We have discussed this before.  You can't always just replace a word with its dictionary definition.

In your original sentence,


kansi said:


> in terms of making up the additional costs *incurred*


you could possibly say "in terms of making up the additional costs run up" or "...additional costs that have come up" or "...additional costs that have become payable", but "incurred" is the best choice.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> We have discussed this before.  You can't always just replace a word with its dictionary definition.


Because even though they(bring upon and make subject to) are same to incur in terms of meaning, they are accutually "almost" same, slight different?
(Or no one said they have the same meaning but people said they have the same *definition?)*


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> you could possibly say "in terms of making up the additional costs run up" or "additional costs that have come up" or "additional costs that have become payable", but "incurred" is the best choice.


Because it's a one-word, shorter and very clear way of meaning it?


----------



## Barque

A sentence's grammar is decided by the overall structure. Sometimes, if you replace a word with its definition, that structure gets thrown off. That's why you can't merely replace "incur" with "bring upon" or "make subject to", unless you reword the entire sentence.

"Bring upon" and "make subject to" are general words that are used to define "incur", because when you incur a cost, you make yourself subject to it, or bring it upon yourself and make yourself obliged to pay it. They aren't absolute synonyms.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> Because it's a one-word, shorter and very clear way of meaning it?


Yes, and that's specifically what it means. You could use "come up" but that's a little more casual, and "come up" is also much more general. "Incurred" is _appropriate _in that context.


----------



## heypresto

We don't stop to think about whether it's shorter/very clear or whatever, we say it because it's the _right/appropriate_ word.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> "Incurred" is _appropriate _in that context.


It sounds like incur is a more specific word for something undesirable like debts.


----------



## Barque

Also, just to confuse you a little more, you could drop "incurred", though the sentence wouldn't be as clear.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> "Bring upon" and "make subject to" are general words that are used to define "incur", because when you incur a cost, you make yourself subject to it, or bring it upon yourself and make yourself obliged to pay it. They aren't absolute synonyms.


Bring upon and make subject sound like actions in the results of incuring?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> It sounds like incur is a more specific word for something undesirable like debts.


Not just debts but also costs.


kansi said:


> Bring upon and make subject sound like actions in the results of incuring?


They describe the process of incur*r*ing something.


----------



## Barque

Let me reword a simple sentence using each word's dictionary definition.

_He is rich.
The male person being discussed the third person singular present of "be" having wealth or great possessions._

It becomes gibberish, doesn't it?


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Let me reword a simple sentence using each word's dictionary definition.
> 
> _He is rich.
> The male person being discussed the third person singular present of "be" having wealth or great possessions._
> 
> It becomes gibberish, doesn't it?


Yes, what it means gets quite unclear.

This is why you said incurred is the best choice although I could say some alternatives?



Barque said:


> you could possibly say "in terms of making up the additional costs run up" or "...additional costs that have come up" or "...additional costs that have become payable", but "incurred" is the best choice


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> We don't stop to think about whether it's shorter/very clear or whatever, we say it because it's the _right/appropriate_ word.


I see. It's an ordinary word I can use in everyday conversation,right?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> It's an ordinary word I can use in everyday conversation,right?


Yes. It's perhaps a slightly upper-register word--"come up" is possibly the more casual alternative. Many people would say "I had to pay for some more things" instead of "I incurred additional costs". 


kansi said:


> This is why you said incurred is the best choice although I could say some alternatives?


Yes.


----------



## heypresto

Yes. Well, whenever you need to talk about incurring costs.

Or incurring the wrath of one god or another.


----------



## kansi

heypresto said:


> Or incurring the wrath of one god or another.


This incur has a different meaning,right?


----------



## User With No Name

kansi said:


> This incur has a different meaning,right?


The context is obviously very different, but the basic meaning of "incur" is the same. You can by your actions bring on additional costs that you have to pay. Or you can bring on the anger of the gods.


----------



## Barque

You can also incur the wrath of your boss or your spouse. 

Or your dog, if you yell at him. _In, Cur! _


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> "I had to pay for some more things" instead of "I incurred additional costs"


When I saw this explanation , I found myself easily misunderstand that incur means pay.( I already know to pay isn't the meaning nor the definition of incur.) This would be a big problem.


----------



## kansi

User With No Name said:


> The context is obviously very different, but the basic meaning of "incur" is the same. You can by your actions bring on additional costs that you have to pay. Or you can bring on the anger of the gods.


In this case, the definition is to make someone angry. But this is probably a higher register word with the same definition:make someone angry?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> I found myself easily misunderstand that incur means pay.( I already know to pay isn't the meaning nor the definition of incur.) This would be a big problem.


I'm not sure I understand. If you have to pay for something, it's because you incurred those costs--you found yourself obligated to pay for those things.

_I was moving house and I thought the movers were the only ones I'd have to pay. But there were a whole lot of others. I incurred additional costs--getting my TV dish uninstalled, changing the address on my driving license, things like that. I had to pay those costs too._


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> I'm not sure I understand. If you have to pay for something, it's because you incurred those costs--you found yourself obligated to pay for those things.


The definition of incur in that content isn't to pay, right? But I would have misunderstood it was to pay, if you hadn't told right definitions(bring upon/make subject).


----------



## Barque

You're taking it too literally.

_I had to pay additional costs - _ I actually paid them.
_I incurred additional costs - _I found myself obliged to pay additional costs. The implication is that you paid them. It doesn't mean you actually paid them but it'd normally be understood as meaning you did pay them. That's why they can be used interchangeably.

Similarly, _My boss told me to stay back late and finish the work_ doesn't mean you actually stayed back late. But there's a strong implication that you did, unless you say you didn't.

It isn't a problem to people used to speaking the language. I'm sure this is true of all languages.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> *The implication* is that you paid them. It doesn't mean you actually paid them but it'd normally be understood as meaning you did pay them. *That's why they can be used interchangeably.*


I see. It doesn't include to pay in its definition but that's its implication. The sentences basically mean same but are slightly different, right?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> The sentences basically mean same but are slightly different, right?


Yes. Taken literally, the meaning's different. But people would normally understand them as meaning the same unless you specifically say "I incurred additional costs, but I didn't pay them".


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Yes. Taken literally, the meaning's different. But people would normally understand them as meaning the same unless you specifically say "I incured additional costs, but I didn't pay them".


Ah I see. I understand a lot through this thread.Thank you very much.

I now feel like a dictionary doesn't always tell us meanings but often just definitions.Is this correct?


----------



## Barque

It does tell us the meanings. "Meaning" and "definition" are fairly similar. But the words it uses to tell us the meaning can't always replace the actual word.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> But the words it uses to tell us the meaning can't always replace the actual word.


Sorry can you explain this part in other words..?


----------



## Barque

I meant that you can't always take the meaning/definition of a word from the dictionary and use it to replace that word itself. It might work in some cases but not usually.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> I meant that you can't always take the meaning/definition of a word from the dictionary and use it to replace that word itself. It might work in some cases but not usually.


Okay, so how we can know the "exact" meaning is by reading maltiple examples sentences?


----------



## Andygc

kansi said:


> Okay, so how we can know the "exact" meaning is by reading maltiple examples sentences?


The exact meaning is as given in the dictionary definition. What don't you understand?





> to make oneself subject to (something undesirable); bring upon oneself


He incurred the wrath of a god = He made himself subject to the wrath of a god.
He incurred an expense = He brought an expense upon himself.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> Okay, so how we can know the "exact" meaning is by reading maltiple examples sentences?


I can't follow your thought process, Kansi.

Dictionaries use multiple words to explain the meaning. For example "rich" is defined as "having a lot of money" or something similar. "Table" is defined as a piece of furniture on legs with a flat top on which things are kept. Try using those as a basis to understand how dictionary definitions work.


----------



## kansi

Andygc said:


> The exact meaning is as given in the dictionary definition. What don't you understand?


I mean, my logic is like..if the exact meaning of a word is definitions of the word on a dictionary, why can't we sometimes replace the word with the words used in the definition?
I already understand sometimes we can't do that because it gets gibbrish or it's too a high register word for the context..But in the case of incur in this content,  I was told I can't replaced incurred with brought upon and that they didn't really mean same because bring upon is a part of the process of incurring.

In this example, I can use whichever words I want to use and both of the sentences mean exactly same?It's just a preferance which word to use?
He incurred an expense = He brought an expense upon himself.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> why can't we sometimes replace the word with the words used in the definition?



One of the reasons:


Barque said:


> A sentence's grammar is decided by the overall structure. Sometimes, if you replace a word with its definition, that structure gets thrown off.




Another reason--the definition explains the meaning. The definition isn't necessarily a synonym.




kansi said:


> He incurred an expense = He brought an expense upon himself.


Well, the meaning is somewhat clear but it isn't idiomatic. It isn't what people who speak English would say.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> In this case, the definition is to make someone angry. But this is probably a higher register word with the same definition:make someone angry?


I just noticed this post, while going through the thread wondering how it became so long.

The definition is not to make someone angry in this case. "Incur" here means the same as it does in "incur costs". It's the thing that's incurred--anger here--that's different.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Dictionaries use multiple words to explain the meaning. For example "rich" is defined as "having a lot of money" or something similar. "Table" is defined as a piece of furniture on legs with a flat top on which things are kept. Try using those as a basis to understand how dictionary definitions work.


❶So in this case of the word "rich", a dictionary probably says the word rich's definition is to have a lot of money.
Then the sentence he is rich can be replaced with he has a lot of money.
I think they mean the exact same thing and it's just a question of preference which people say.

❷Back to the word "incur", WR dictionary says one of the definitions is bring upon and this definition is right in  my OP context.
But I was incur and bring upon are a bit different in meaning so I can't replace one with the other.

These situations ❶ and ❷ seem contradictory. So I thought a dictionary probably doesn't (always) tell exact meanings and I am wondering how I can know exact meanings of a word.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Well, the meaning is somewhat clear but it isn't idiomatic. It isn't what people who speak English would say.


so the meaning of the bring upon version is clear and same to the incur version but the bring upon version doesn't sound idiomatic??


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> Then the sentence he is rich can be replaced with he has a lot of money.


You've also changed the sentence. You've not just replaced "rich" with the definition; you had to change the sentence to accommodate "has a lot of money". You had to change "He is" to "He has".

Also, the definition you quoted was "to have a lot of money". But the words you used to replace "rich" were "has a lot of money". They aren't the same. Do you see?

And it doesn't always work that way. With "rich" you may not have to make much change. With other words, you may have to.


kansi said:


> But I was incur and bring upon are a bit different in meaning so I can't replace one with the other.


Every word is different. Therefore the way the meaning is explained will also differ.



kansi said:


> These situations ❶ and ❷ seem contradictory.


They are not because every word and their function are different. Nouns and adjectives are different, for instance. And there will be what seems to be contradiction because there aren't any rules for this sort of thing.

As I said in post 49,


Barque said:


> the definition explains the meaning. The definition isn't necessarily a synonym.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> so the meaning of the bring upon version is clear and same to the incur version but the bring upon version doesn't sound idiomatic??


Yes. In fact, it isn't exactly the same though it'd be understood. It sounds very different. That's just how it is.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> I just noticed this post, while going through the thread wondering how it became so long.
> 
> The definition is not to make someone angry in this case. "Incur" here means the same as it does in "incur costs". It's the thing that's incurred--anger here--that's different.


Ah it sounds like the implication of the sentence is different?
The implication of incurring some cost is I would pay that.
The implication of incurring the wrath is I would need something to fix the wrath?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> The implication of incurring some cost is I would pay that.


Yes, normally.


kansi said:


> The implication of incurring the wrath is I would need something to fix the wrath?


If you're referring to incurring the wrath of a person, say your boss, it just means he became angry with you. It doesn't imply anything else.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Also the definition you quoted was "to have a lot of money". But the words you used to replace "rich" were "has a lot of money". They aren't the same. Do you see?


I know I know..the word rich isn't a good example. For example, when I search  WR dictionary for some verb , I often find an one-word verb in its definition.

But even thought the one-word verb is listed in its definition, it doesn't always mean that that verb and the searched verb have the exact same meaning so we can replace the searched word in a sentence with that one-word verb?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> But even thought the one-word verb is listed in its definition, it doesn't always mean that that verb and the searched verb have the exact same meaning so we can replace the searched word in a sentence with that one-word verb?


No, it doesn't always mean that. 

It might mean that with some words, in some sentences, but not in other sentences. 

It might not mean that at all with other words.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> If you're referring to incurring the wrath of a person, say your boss, it just means *he became angry with you*.


Okay, but the definition of incur in this context isn't to make a person angry, as you said here?


Barque said:


> I just noticed this post, while going through the thread wondering how it became so long.
> 
> The definition is *not to make someone angry* in this case. "Incur" here means the same as it does in "incur costs". It's the thing that's incurred--anger here--that's different.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> Okay, but the definition of incur in this context isn't to make a person angry, as you said here?


No, it isn't. "Incur" always means the same thing. The thing that's incurred can be different.

He incurred costs = He got himself into a position where he had to pay costs. Usually (not always) it implies he paid them or is going to pay them. 
He incurred someone's wrath = He got himself into a position where someone was angry with him.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> No, it doesn't always mean that.
> 
> It might mean that with some words, in some sentences, but not in other sentences.
> 
> It might not mean that at all with other words.


Ah so listed words in the definition of a word sometimes have the same meanings to the word but sometimes they have similar meanings to the searched word.
And a dictionary doesn't tell which listed words have the same meaning and which have just similar meanings?


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> He got himself into a position where


Is this same to make a person angry?
Or you means I don't make someone angry but others do and I somehow got into a position where someone is angry with me?This is possible so the definition is to make someone angry?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> Is this same to make a person angry?


Incur=To make yourself subject to. That's it.

The word's used with reference to only a few things, like costs you have to pay, obligations you have to perform and anger directed by someone towards you. And maybe a few other things that I can't think of.


----------



## JulianStuart

Barque said:


> He got himself into a position where





kansi said:


> Is this same to make a person angry?


Absolutely NOT.  There is no mention of anger there.  In the dictionary example, the combination of _incur_ and _anger_ is a combination, a context etc.
Your question is like reading a sentence that says "He has eaten your potatoes" and then asking does "eat" mean "potatoes". The two concepts are completely separate and we make sentences by combining words.  You can incur wrath and you can eat potatoes.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Incur=To make yourself subject to. That's it.


Ah anything related to with anger isn't in its definition nor meaning of incur. It's just because of the context.Is this what you mean?


----------



## Barque

JulianStuart said:


> Your question is like reading a sentence that says "He has eaten your potatoes" and then asking does "eat" mean "potatoes".




Perhaps this isn't the right time to mention that in Tamil, the question "Have you eaten rice?" can mean "Have you eaten?"


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> Ah anything related to with anger isn't in its definition nor meaning of incur. It's just because of the context.Is this what you mean?


 Just like eat and potatoes don't share meaning


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> It's just because of the context.Is this what you mean?


Yes. That's why you can say "He incurred costs". Anger has nothing to do with costs.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Perhaps this isn't the right time to mention that in Tamil, the question "Have you eaten rice?" can mean "Have you eaten?"


It's an example where a word(rice) can mean a different thing (rice or thing) , depending on the context?


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> Your question is like reading a sentence that says "He has eaten your potatoes" and then asking does "eat" mean "potatoes".


Now I realized that I was asking something like that:asking if the word eat means eat specifically a potato.


----------



## kansi

I just want to make sure that listed words in the definition of a word sometimes have the same meanings to the searched word but sometimes just similar meanings?


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> I just want to make sure that listed words in the definition of a word sometimes have the same meanings to the searched word but sometimes just similar meanings?


Yes: just like in Japanese   Every dictionary MUST use different words to communicate the meaning of the searched word; sometimes one or more of those words have the same meaning in some contexts, but often a phrase is needed to communicate the meaning because there is no "other" single word that has the meaning.


----------



## JulianStuart

Barque said:


> Perhaps this isn't the right time to mention that in Tamil, the question "Have you eaten rice?" can mean "Have you eaten?"


And one of the Japanese words for "breakfast" is "morning rice" but not all rice is eaten at breakfast and sometimes breakfast has no rice


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> Yes: just like in Japanese   Every dictionary MUST use different words to communicate the meaning of the searched word; sometimes one or more of those words have the same meaning in some contexts, but often a phrase is needed to communicate the meaning because there is no "other" single word that has the meaning.


Ah I see!

That's why incur in incur debt can't be
replaced with such a word like bring upon , which is listed and has at least the closest meaning, meaning it's only closest not same in terms of meaning.


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> Ah I see!
> That's why incur in incur debt can't be replaced with such a word like bring upon , which is listed and has at least the closest meaning, meaning it's only closest not same in terms of meaning.


 In your original post, you only asked about "incurred" (not about the phrase "consts incurred") so you must have already realized that costs (and debt etc) are not part of the meaning of the word incur. It's only when you combine them to make a phrase "costs incurred" that you convey the desired combined meaning. (Like combining "morning rice")


kansi said:


> However, in terms of making up the additional costs *incurred*, “neither of us has broached the topic”, Mr Azmy says.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> It's only when you combine them to make a phrase "costs incurred" that you convey the desired combined meaning. (Like combining "morning rice")


I see. Bring upon is listed as having a very close meaning so "costs brought upon" has a slightly different meaning from "costs incurred".


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> I see. *Bring upon* is listed as having a very close meaning so "*costs* brought upon"   has a slightly different meaning from "costs incurred".


You have made an error.
BRING UPON is a _*phrase*_ that does not have any meaning related to costs/debt etc.  They are being used in a phrase where the two separate words each have their own separate meaning.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> You have made an error.
> BRING UPON is a _*phrase*_ that does not have any meaning related to costs/debt etc.  They are being used in a phrase where the two separate words each have their own separate meaning.


I refered to WR dictionary,
in•cur  (in kûr*′*), v.t.,  *-curred, -cur•ring.* 

to come into or acquire (some consequence, usually undesirable or injurious):to incur a huge number of debts.
to become liable or subject to through one's own action;
*bring or take upon oneself*:to incur his displeasure.
Doesn't this mean bring upon has a very close meaning at least?


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> I refered to WR dictionary,
> in•cur  (in kûr*′*), v.t.,  *-curred, -cur•ring.*
> 
> to come into or acquire (some consequence, usually undesirable or injurious):to incur a huge number of debts.
> to become liable or subject to through one's own action;
> *bring or take upon oneself*:to incur his displeasure.
> Doesn't this mean bring upon has a very close meaning at least?


If you have finally stopped saying these words have a MEANING of costs,debt etc than yes you have finally intepreted the dictionary correctly. Yes the _meaning_ of incur can be expressed well by the phase "bring upon oneself". The examples of _what_ can be incurred/brought upon oneself are NOT part of their meaning, they are example to show examples of its use.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> If you have finally stopped saying these words have a MEANING of costs,debt etc


Yes I already understood a meaning of costs, debt etc isn't included in its meaning of incur.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> The examples of _what_ can be incurred/brought upon oneself are NOT part of their meaning, they are example to show examples of its use.


Could you please explain in other words?
incur is expressed well by the phrase bring upon oneself but what can be incurred and what can be brought
upon oneself are different?
You mean we can incur debts or costs but we can't bring upon debts or costs because the objects can be incurred and the objects can be brought upon are different?


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> Could you please explain in other words?
> incur is expressed well by the phrase bring upon oneself but what can be incurred and what can be brought
> upon oneself are different?
> You mean we can incur debts or costs but we can't bring upon debts or costs because the objects can be incurred and the objects can be brought upon are different?


You keep mixing up the examples and the definition.
The meaning of *incur *has no relationship to the meaning of debts/costs.  The meaning of *bring upon oneself* has no relationship to the meaning of costs debt.  Please reread the definitions above.  *It is only the examples that bring together the words incur or bring upon oneself debt and costs*. Just like the definition of eat has nor relationship to the meaning of potato, rice sushi or steak. And the meainng of morning has no relationship to meraning of the word rice. To incur a debt is the same meaning as to bring upon oneself a debt.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> To incur a debt is the same meaning as to bring upon oneself a debt.


I see. So this is true.
But this isn't true:*a debt incurred* is the same meaning as to *a debt brought upon* *myself?*


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> But this *isn't* true:*a debt incurred* is the same meaning as to *a debt brought upon* *myself?*


Yes it is. Why do you think it's not? Go all the way back to #11 and the definition.  Re-read them


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> Yes it is. Why do you think it's not? Go all the way back to #11 and the definition.  Re-read them


Okay, I read that #11.

So, I already clearly know that costs, debts or etc isn't a part of the meanings of incur or bring upon oneself.

But what I am not very sure is that incur and bring upon oneself (in other words, the verbs themselves) have the same meaning or very close meanings?
How should I understand it when you said:


JulianStuart said:


> Yes the _meaning_ of incur can be *expressed well *by the phase "bring upon oneself".



I know you clearly said here,*with costs, debts or etc,* incur them or bring them upon oneself have the same meaning.


JulianStuart said:


> To incur a debt is the same meaning as to bring upon oneself a debt.


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> But what I am not very sure is that incur and bring upon oneself (in other words, the verbs themselves) have *the same meaning or very close meanings?*


What aspect is it that makes you uncertain? Yes. I'm not sure how many times we have to say this to you.  That is the function of the dictionary (and all the posts above): to provide other words or phrases that describe the meaning of the searched word .  If "A expresses the meaning of B well" it means that the meanings are, as you paraphrased it "*the same meaning or very close meanings?"*
The last two quotes in post #84 above say the same thing.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> What aspect is it that makes you uncertain? Yes. I'm not sure how many times we have to say this to you.  That is the function of the dictionary (and all the posts above): to provide other words or phrases that describe the meaning of the searched word .  If "A expresses the meaning of B well" it means that the meanings are, as you paraphrased it "*the same meaning or very close meanings?"*
> The last two quotes in post #84 above say the same thing.


I see!

Now I am also very sure that incur in the context of my OP sentence and bring upon oneself have the same meaning or very close meanings.

But no native speaker would say:
*making up the additional costs brought up on myself*

because incurred, a single-word verb does a far better job to express the same meaning in a very clear, not gibberish way.Is it correct?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> It's an example where a word(rice) can mean a different thing (rice or thing) , depending on the context?


That was meant as a joke. It works in Tamil because it's idiomatic usage in it. See Julian Stuart's #72 where he quotes similar Japanese usage.

To get back to your question, the word "journey" means a trip. You can go on a journey by walking, or by getting into a car and driving, or taking a train, or catching a flight. But driving a car isn't the same as a journey. It's a way of going on a journey, and very often cars are driven on short trips that people wouldn't call a "journey". 

Similarly, "to bring upon oneself" are words used to explain the meaning of "incur". If you ask someone to do something for you, and he does it and charges you for it, you've incurred costs--the costs of getting it done. By putting yourself into a position where you become obliged to pay those costs, you have incurred costs. You could tell someone, "I incurred costs for those services", before you paid for them and after you paid for them.

I'm surprised that it's difficult for you to follow this--this isn't unique to English. It'd be true of any language.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> That was meant as a joke. It works in Tamil because it's idiomatic usage in it. See Julian Stuart's #72 where he quotes similar Japanese usage.
> 
> To get back to your question, the word "journey" means a trip. You can go on a journey by walking, or by getting into a car and driving, or taking a train, or catching a flight. But driving a car isn't the same as a journey. It's a way of going on a journey, and very often cars are driven on short trips that people wouldn't call a "journey".
> 
> Similarly, "to bring upon oneself" are words used to explain the meaning of "incur". If you ask someone to do something for you, and he does it and charges you for it, you've incurred costs--the costs of getting it done. By putting yourself into a position where you become obliged to pay those costs, you have incurred costs. You could tell someone, "I incurred costs for those services", before you paid for them and after you paid for them.
> 
> I'm surprised that it's difficult for you to follow this--this isn't unique to English. It'd be true of any language.


You are saying that's a difference of a way (or a process) and the wouldbe achieved goal, right?
driving - a way/process
journey - the goal

bring upon oneself - a way/process
incur - the goal


----------



## Barque

It's not a question of a goal or a process.

When a dictionary explains the meaning of a word, it can't use the same word. If it did, the reader wouldn't learn anything. It has to use other words to explain. 

So when it explains the meaning of "incur", it uses the words "to bring upon oneself".

I remember giving you this example in another thread of yours. Tokyo is 'defined' as the capital of and a seaport in Japan. But you wouldn't say "I live in the capital of and a seaport in Japan".  You'd say "I live in Tokyo".

Also the words "the capital of and a seaport in" can be used to refer to other cities, for example Algiers in Algeria. Look up Tokyo and Algiers in the WR dictonary and you'll see what I mean.

Tokyo doesn't mean "the capital of and a seaport in". Those words are just used to explain what Tokyo is. According to Wikipedia, the actual meaning of the word Tokyo is "east capital"--_tō _meaning "east", and _kyō_ meaning "capital".


----------



## heypresto

Barque said:


> When a dictionary explains the meaning of a word, it can't use the same word. If it did, the reader wouldn't learn anything. It has to use other words to explain.


  I think this perfectly sums up the toings and froings in this whole thread. And numerous others.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> It's not a question of a goal or a process.
> 
> When a dictionary explains the meaning of a word, it can't use the same word. If it did, the reader wouldn't learn anything. It has to use other words to explain.
> 
> So when it explains the meaning of "incur", it uses the words "to bring upon oneself".
> 
> I remember giving you this example in another thread of yours. Tokyo is 'defined' as the capital of and a seaport in Japan. But you wouldn't say "I live in the capital of and a seaport in Japan".  You'd say "I live in Tokyo".
> 
> Also the words "the capital of and a seaport in" can be used to refer to other cities, for example Algiers in Algeria. Look up Tokyo and Algiers in the WR dictonary and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Tokyo doesn't mean "the capital of and a seaport in". Those words are just used to explain what Tokyo is. According to Wikipedia, the actual meaning of the word Tokyo is "east capital"--_tō _meaning "east", and _kyō_ meaning "capital".


I thought this was a difference between a meaning and a discription.
The capital of Japan and a seaport is the discription of Tokyo.
East capital is a meaning of Tokyo.

Anyway, what you said here is a dictionary's fanction and the same thing happens to a word and listed explanations (as its definitions)?


Barque said:


> Tokyo doesn't mean "the capital of and a seaport in". Those words are just used to explain what Tokyo is.


A dictionary gives us not a meaning diretly but more like a word's discription ,using other words,in order to *lead* us to feel or to learn by ourself its meaning?


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> I thought this was a difference between a meaning and a discription.
> The capital of Japan and a seaport is the discription of Tokyo.
> East capital is a meaning of Tokyo.


Yes.


kansi said:


> A dictionary gives us not a meaning diretly but more like a word's discription ,using other words,in order to lead us feel or learn by ourself its meaning?


Sometimes it gives its meaning. Sometimes it describes the meaning. Every word is different and it's not possible to define them all in the same way.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> Sometimes it gives its meaning. Sometimes it describes the meaning. Every word is different and it's not possible to define them all in the same way.


I see.
We can't know which listed definitions are the meanings of a seached word or merely the discriptions of it ,unless we already know the word ,or try to figure it out when we don't know the word yet.


----------



## Barque

kansi said:


> We can't know which listed definitions are the meanings of a seached word or merely the discriptions of it


You can normally tell from the words. (It's _d*e*scription_, by the way.)


----------



## JulianStuart

kansi said:


> I see.
> We can't know which listed definitions are the meanings of a seached word or merely the discriptions of it ,unless we already know the word ,or try to figure it out when we don't know the word yet.


I have been using the terms for the entries in dictionaries as "decribing the meaning" or "presenting the meaning" or "giving the meaning" of the searched word to refer to the same thing.  "To incur" means "to bing upon onself".  "To bring upon oneself" is (or describes) the MEANING of the word "incur".  In the context of a dictionary definition, I don't see a difference.
Take cube as an example.  The entry reads like a "description of a cube" but it is also the "definition".


> cube n. [countable] _Mathematics_ *a solid object with sides that are six equal squares*, or an object similar to this:_a sugar cube_.


----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> You can normally tell from the words. (It's _d*e*scription_, by the way.)


in the case of incur, I couldn't tell that bring upon oneself is acctually the meaning of the word, not just the description. This is one of the examples where I can't tell whether it's a meaning or merely a description.


----------



## Barque

See JulianStuart's post above. 

Does it really matter if it is the meaning of the words or a description? The purpose of a dictionary is to help you understand what a word means--whether it uses a meaning or a description (which can be the same as Julian Stuart says) doesn't matter.

If you want to understand what "incur" means, I think there's enough material in this thread to help you. I don't see the point in getting into a discussion on how to interpret the words a dictionary uses.


----------



## kansi

JulianStuart said:


> I don't see a difference.
> Take cube as an excample. The entry reads like a "description of a cube" but it is also the "definition".


I thought the description of it gives just a very close meaning to the actual meaning of a word, while the meaning of it is literally the actual meaning.


----------



## Barque

You've wandered far from the original question, and you aren't helping yourself by going into so much detail.

When you incur something, you bring it upon yourself. The word is used in relation to certain things like costs, obligations and anger. There may be others but these are all I can think of just now.

When you become liable to pay someone something, you incur costs. When someone gets angry with you, you incur their anger. When you agree to take on an obligation, you incur that obligation. If you've got the general idea now, that's all you need.

I don't want to post in this thread again. My advice, for what it's worth, is to go back and read the first twenty posts or so. That's all you need to understand the word "incur".


----------



## heypresto




----------



## kansi

Barque said:


> When you incur something, you bring it upon yourself. The word is used in relation to certain things like costs, obligations and anger. There may be others but these are all I can think of just now.
> 
> When you become liable to pay someone something, you incur costs. When someone gets angry with you, you incur their anger. When you agree to take on an obligation, you incur that obligation. If you've got the general idea now, that's all you need.
> 
> I don't want to post in this thread again. My advice, for what it's worth, is to go back and read the first twenty posts or so. That's all you need to understand the word "incur


As you said,  my original question about incur has been solved. I've already got the general idea about it. 

Thank you for your a lot of replies!


----------

