From an article in the New York Times: I thought the correct usage was "proponent of." Have I been doing it wrong for 70+ years?
I've always used "proponent of". A quick Google check shows that "proponent of" gets 20 million hits while "proponent for" only gets about a million but that doesn't necessarily prove either is right or wrong. Proponent is a noun without a clear verb form (is propone a word?) whereas advocate can be both, so "an advocate for" returns much more than "an advocate of" even though it's used as a noun in both instances. I don't know if this helps answer the question though. Edit: propone is a word, but I don't think I've ever heard or read it.
Proponent "of" is overwhelmingly more common, but a small number of proponent "fors" have been slipping through the net since the 1960s. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=proponed,proponent+of,proponent+for&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1;,proponed;,c0;.t1;,proponent of;,c0;.t1;,proponent for;,c0 Also in that particular example, if it was going to follow the pattern of "advocate of"/"advocate for", it feels to me like something as abstract as "fire defence" should take the of rather than the for. But incorrect, that always feels sweeping to me for a marked usage that's equally comprehensible, and when I'm only in contact with a few dialects of English. In this case it's a loan-word that took the accusative in its original language (e.g. proponere rem gestam) and has (I'm guessing now) only been turned into a noun inside the adopting language by its own artificial convention of sticking -nt on the end of Latinisms to make them sound like a participle*. "To propone" seems to have been used in English-language legal texts until the late 1800s, and occasionally things were proponed by a "proponer". E.g.:- "and the proponer of the exception would give his oath". That sounds nicer to my ear than proponent, but it also shows (imo) how much the core meaning of the verb is shifting in English (I mean, legal exceptions used to have proponers, but now fire defences have proponents), and when things shift so quickly who can distinguish which mutant usages will survive. * - what I'm guessing is that this participle becomes common in English-speakers' Latin and wasn't seen in classical Latin. I only did a quick search on the Perseus Project though and am ready to stand corrected. "Proponent" feels to me like a participle-for-noun that is now really just a noun
Yes, I considered "advocate." But that conflates two different uses. In the former, an "advocate of" refers to a person who supports and promotes something. It's a noun. I the latter, "advocate for" is the verb form, meaning "to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.)" or "to plead in favor of ."
A thought—an opponent doesn't oppone, they oppose. So maybe the verb form of proponent is to propose? I thought it was ridiculous until I wrote it and suddenly it makes perfect sense. Of course, a proponent of an idea proposes that he believes the idea is true. Right? Right?
Followup thought... so, if someone supposes something, does that make them a supponent? Maybe a suppository?
It's coming together now. The root word is pose, or position. A proponent proposes or makes a proposition, an opponent opposes or stands in opposition. I suppose supposition fits, but there doesn't seem to be a supponent form in use today, if ever. There's also a preposition. But that doesn't seem to fit with the rest either. I've never heard of anyone preposing something, or being a preponent. But then a preposition is a part of speech and probably from a different root word. Or is it? Would it make sense to say that a preposition pre-positions itself in any way?
prē-pō˙-zish′ on). The act of preposing, or placing before or in front of something else. In grammar, something preposed; a prefixed element; a prefix; Well damn!! I love it when a weird idea comes together.
So it's all about 'taking a position' on a topic. You can be a proponent or an opponent. A preposition takes up a position in front of something. I'm not sure how supposition fits in though. It's taking the position of thinking about something? Maybe the original meaning is a little different. Ok, now I need to root around in the etymological cellar again... hold on... suppose (v.) early 14c., "to assume as the basis of argument," from Old French suposer "to assume" (13c.), probably a replacement (influenced by Old French poser "put, place") of *suppondre, from Latin supponere "put or place under; to subordinate, make subject," from assimilated form of sub "under" (see sub-) + ponere "put, place" (past participle positus; see position (n.)). Meaning "to admit as possible, to believe to be true" is from 1520s. Note the mention of 'subordinate'. And listed right under this heading are related words, the first one being Sub, meaning under. So to suppose was originally more like to subpose, or to stand under. Not to be confused with understanding. Rather to position yourself under the idea I think.
Or maybe to position an idea under something, like a foundation for the argument. As in "to assume as the basis of argument". A basis or a base is essentially a foundation. By George, I think I've got it! So it's either to position yourself in relation to an idea (propose or oppose) or to place something in a particular position (preposition, supposition). Similar terms would be transpose, expose, dispose, and I'm sure there are many others.
Oppone and opponer also fall out of use in the mid 1800s. "I know you both a man of learning and modesty; but that ye shall oppone yourself in the truth whereof I suppose your own conscience is no less persuaded than is mine" "hee wissend ytte bettre noghte toe bee an Opponer" This is to do with how the Latin verb's indicative and participle forms mapped across into English An opponent is opposite us and opposes, in opposition. I suppose it's possible we mistook the root verb for opposere when the Latin was opponere. The schools of thought who like to regulate and standardize language, and tell us that "wissend ytte bettre" is primitive (when it was clearly more advanced ), might say English follows a beautiful logic in how it maps Latin onto English. But if we compare back to propose:- An opponent is opposite us and opposes, in opposition. A proponent is proposite us and proposes in a proposition. What's more, these examples are in flux https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+proponent+proposes,+the+proposer+proposes,+the+opponent+opposes,+the+opposer+opposes&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1;,the proponent proposes;,c0;.t1;,the proposer proposes;,c0;.t1;,the opponent opposes;,c0
I love when I'm able to figure out how the modern English works by thinking through it like I did above. It's sort of a hobby of mine to do this, and often it reveals things that aren't directly stated in any of the definitions or etymologies. You have to wrangle it—finagle it until the connections become clear and the meaning emerges. It all happened because I asked myself the simple question—are there any other words similar to proponent? Opponent popped up and raised its hand. The rest fell into place stage by stage.
Historically, even "advocates for" was rare as a verb, and referred almost exclusively to advocating positions on behalf of the group named as object, or occasionally a person. "He advocates for the abolition of..." as a replacement for "He advocates the abolition of..." is one of the clearest of many millennial tics — possibly second to moving the comma from before FANBOYS conjunctions to after them — and was all but non-existent before 2000. NGrams "he advocated for the" versus "he advocated the" It's a tad less dramatic with "advocates" instead of "advocated," but still clear that it's a millennial misunderstanding gradually diluting general usage. And it just so happens that's my pet peeve. It sounds so downmarket.
That actually sounds more likely than propose. But oppound doesn't make any sense, nor does it seem to fit with any other words I can think of (so far anyway). Weird the way the English language works. There's impound, but I don't think it's the same. There's also an impose (like propose/oppose), but I don't think they're related.
