Is “curious of” acceptable or even better than “curious about”?
Many speakers and internet writers seem to use "curious of" in place of "curious about". For example:
I am curious of what he thinks.
This is in spite of what seems to be, by the rules of grammar I can find, less correct than saying:
I am curious about what he thinks.
I have heard both forms uttered so much that there seems in fact a subtle difference in meaning between the two, but I may be imagining things.
Two questions--
- Is "curious of" really any less correct than "curious about"?
- Is "curious of" actually more appropriate for certain subjects or certain relationships, due to different connotations perhaps?
grammar
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
add a comment |
Many speakers and internet writers seem to use "curious of" in place of "curious about". For example:
I am curious of what he thinks.
This is in spite of what seems to be, by the rules of grammar I can find, less correct than saying:
I am curious about what he thinks.
I have heard both forms uttered so much that there seems in fact a subtle difference in meaning between the two, but I may be imagining things.
Two questions--
- Is "curious of" really any less correct than "curious about"?
- Is "curious of" actually more appropriate for certain subjects or certain relationships, due to different connotations perhaps?
grammar
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
add a comment |
Many speakers and internet writers seem to use "curious of" in place of "curious about". For example:
I am curious of what he thinks.
This is in spite of what seems to be, by the rules of grammar I can find, less correct than saying:
I am curious about what he thinks.
I have heard both forms uttered so much that there seems in fact a subtle difference in meaning between the two, but I may be imagining things.
Two questions--
- Is "curious of" really any less correct than "curious about"?
- Is "curious of" actually more appropriate for certain subjects or certain relationships, due to different connotations perhaps?
grammar
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
Many speakers and internet writers seem to use "curious of" in place of "curious about". For example:
I am curious of what he thinks.
This is in spite of what seems to be, by the rules of grammar I can find, less correct than saying:
I am curious about what he thinks.
I have heard both forms uttered so much that there seems in fact a subtle difference in meaning between the two, but I may be imagining things.
Two questions--
- Is "curious of" really any less correct than "curious about"?
- Is "curious of" actually more appropriate for certain subjects or certain relationships, due to different connotations perhaps?
grammar
grammar
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
asked Feb 8 '13 at 6:35
DuckMaestroDuckMaestro
86061120
86061120
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for curious has two citations which include curious of. Both are given under obsolete definitions. The British National Corpus has no records showing curious of followed by the kind of construction seen in your example. We can conclude that it has no role in normal contemporary English.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
add a comment |
"Curious of" is not idiomatic American English. The Brigham Young University COCA corpus shows 20 hits for it compared with 1532 for "curious about". I was surprised that there were 20 hits.
The BNC shows only 6 hits for "curious of" and 50 random hits for "curious about". It apparently isn't idiomatic British English either.
Google Ngram viewer shows a decline in the usage of "curious of" and a rise in the usage of "curious about". The former seems to be a dated usage, and I'd avoid it, unless you want to sound like a 19th-century speaker-writer or a non-native speaker.
There are no discernible differences in connotation between "of" and "about" in these phrases that recommend one usage over the other.
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
add a comment |
This could be a dialect choice, but the standard use is "curious about". There are no grammar books that use "curious of". But as language is in perpetual flux, this might be an accepted "verb+preposition collocation" in the future.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103432%2fis-curious-of-acceptable-or-even-better-than-curious-about%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for curious has two citations which include curious of. Both are given under obsolete definitions. The British National Corpus has no records showing curious of followed by the kind of construction seen in your example. We can conclude that it has no role in normal contemporary English.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
add a comment |
The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for curious has two citations which include curious of. Both are given under obsolete definitions. The British National Corpus has no records showing curious of followed by the kind of construction seen in your example. We can conclude that it has no role in normal contemporary English.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
add a comment |
The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for curious has two citations which include curious of. Both are given under obsolete definitions. The British National Corpus has no records showing curious of followed by the kind of construction seen in your example. We can conclude that it has no role in normal contemporary English.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for curious has two citations which include curious of. Both are given under obsolete definitions. The British National Corpus has no records showing curious of followed by the kind of construction seen in your example. We can conclude that it has no role in normal contemporary English.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
answered Feb 8 '13 at 8:03
Barrie EnglandBarrie England
129k10204352
129k10204352
add a comment |
add a comment |
"Curious of" is not idiomatic American English. The Brigham Young University COCA corpus shows 20 hits for it compared with 1532 for "curious about". I was surprised that there were 20 hits.
The BNC shows only 6 hits for "curious of" and 50 random hits for "curious about". It apparently isn't idiomatic British English either.
Google Ngram viewer shows a decline in the usage of "curious of" and a rise in the usage of "curious about". The former seems to be a dated usage, and I'd avoid it, unless you want to sound like a 19th-century speaker-writer or a non-native speaker.
There are no discernible differences in connotation between "of" and "about" in these phrases that recommend one usage over the other.
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
add a comment |
"Curious of" is not idiomatic American English. The Brigham Young University COCA corpus shows 20 hits for it compared with 1532 for "curious about". I was surprised that there were 20 hits.
The BNC shows only 6 hits for "curious of" and 50 random hits for "curious about". It apparently isn't idiomatic British English either.
Google Ngram viewer shows a decline in the usage of "curious of" and a rise in the usage of "curious about". The former seems to be a dated usage, and I'd avoid it, unless you want to sound like a 19th-century speaker-writer or a non-native speaker.
There are no discernible differences in connotation between "of" and "about" in these phrases that recommend one usage over the other.
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
add a comment |
"Curious of" is not idiomatic American English. The Brigham Young University COCA corpus shows 20 hits for it compared with 1532 for "curious about". I was surprised that there were 20 hits.
The BNC shows only 6 hits for "curious of" and 50 random hits for "curious about". It apparently isn't idiomatic British English either.
Google Ngram viewer shows a decline in the usage of "curious of" and a rise in the usage of "curious about". The former seems to be a dated usage, and I'd avoid it, unless you want to sound like a 19th-century speaker-writer or a non-native speaker.
There are no discernible differences in connotation between "of" and "about" in these phrases that recommend one usage over the other.
"Curious of" is not idiomatic American English. The Brigham Young University COCA corpus shows 20 hits for it compared with 1532 for "curious about". I was surprised that there were 20 hits.
The BNC shows only 6 hits for "curious of" and 50 random hits for "curious about". It apparently isn't idiomatic British English either.
Google Ngram viewer shows a decline in the usage of "curious of" and a rise in the usage of "curious about". The former seems to be a dated usage, and I'd avoid it, unless you want to sound like a 19th-century speaker-writer or a non-native speaker.
There are no discernible differences in connotation between "of" and "about" in these phrases that recommend one usage over the other.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:51
user21497
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
add a comment |
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
Of those 20 hits, only 8 meet the criteria we are discussing here.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:09
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
@Jim: So even less used than "curious about".
– user21497
Feb 8 '13 at 7:12
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
Yep. It's a curious construction.
– Jim
Feb 8 '13 at 7:17
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
So maybe there is another alternative to 'about' and 'of' that is more proper.
– Bronek
Jan 26 '18 at 17:50
add a comment |
This could be a dialect choice, but the standard use is "curious about". There are no grammar books that use "curious of". But as language is in perpetual flux, this might be an accepted "verb+preposition collocation" in the future.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
add a comment |
This could be a dialect choice, but the standard use is "curious about". There are no grammar books that use "curious of". But as language is in perpetual flux, this might be an accepted "verb+preposition collocation" in the future.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
add a comment |
This could be a dialect choice, but the standard use is "curious about". There are no grammar books that use "curious of". But as language is in perpetual flux, this might be an accepted "verb+preposition collocation" in the future.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
This could be a dialect choice, but the standard use is "curious about". There are no grammar books that use "curious of". But as language is in perpetual flux, this might be an accepted "verb+preposition collocation" in the future.
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
answered Feb 8 '13 at 6:50
Patrick T. RandolphPatrick T. Randolph
1,27911223
1,27911223
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103432%2fis-curious-of-acceptable-or-even-better-than-curious-about%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
