Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Similar or Diffrent?	Yurii	08/12/03
Dear Rich, Accept my gratitude for the most thorough treatment of my problems. Would you agree that the following expressions are not semantically equivalent though have ONE meaning in common in which they are interchangeable: of no avail to no avail of no avail - (used predicatively) useless; unsuccessful (also: of no effect): All their efforts to save him from his folly were of no avail. to no avail - (also: to no effect) 1. in vain; without result: We pulled him out of the river and tried to revive him, but to no avail. 2. = of no avail: They searched for nearly an hour, but it was to no avail. The keys were nowhere to be found. Many thanks, Yuri
Answered By		Answered On
richturner		08/12/03
Dear Yuri: Certainly, definition 2 of "to no avail" is interchangeable with "of no avail." But notice that we could also use the wording of definition 1 in this sentence: They searched for nearly an hour, but it was in vain. I agree that "of no avail" would be inappropriate in the illustrative sentence given for definition 1 ("We pulled him out of the river and tried to revive him, but to no avail"), but this does not mean that "of no avail" cannot mean "in vain." I think we can say: Their efforts were to no avail. Their efforts were of no avail. Their efforts were useless. Their efforts were in vain. Their efforts yielded no results. Their efforts were fruitless. Their efforts were unsuccessful. Therefore, to say that "of no avail" and "to no avail" are semantically different is false. They are idiomatically different in that "of no avail" cannot be used naturally in some contexts where "to no avail" works (e.g., the sentence quoted above), but this is a difference in idiom, not in meaning. Rich

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!