Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The first line of this news story says:

Call it space grave robbery for a cause: imagine scavenging defunct communication satellites for their valuable parts and recycling them to build brand new ones for cheap.

I've heard people use that "for cheap" construction before, but thought it was dialectal (mid-to-northern English). I was surprised to see it in an NZ publication.

Why does that almost pass grammatical muster, whereas "for expensive" (for example) really stinks?

share|improve this question
2  
I agree that it is not British Standard English. It would instead be on the cheap. –  Barrie England Jan 23 '13 at 20:46
    
It's a common enough expression here in NZ. –  deutschZuid Jan 23 '13 at 20:53
    
@James Jiao: Is it? I haven't heard it here before. Do you think it is a British import? I wonder if that construction is used in any Asian or PI languages. –  Kyudos Jan 23 '13 at 20:57
1  
@James Jiao: on the cheap is definitely a British English thing, common enough that almost anything in Britain can be done on the cheap. –  Kyudos Jan 23 '13 at 23:35
1  
@FumbleFingers: Talk is cheap! And, if something costs a pretty penny, don't pay an arm and a leg to get it!... drive a hard bargain! And so on... There are a great many idioms (and especially about money, prices and bargain). –  Pantelis Sopasakis Jan 25 '13 at 2:23
show 4 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

From Google Books...

build them cheaply:600 hits
build them cheap:294 hits
build them for cheap:0 hits

buy them cheaply:4750 hits
buy them cheap:9980 hits
buy them for cheap:49 hits

As @bib says, for cheap may well be patterned after for free, where there's also disagreement over "acceptable" usage. For me personally, for cheap doesn't "pass grammatical muster", but I have no problem with people using adjectival cheap instead of adverbial cheaply.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree on the mustering, unless the usage was intentionally jocular. I did say almost pass! –  Kyudos Jan 23 '13 at 23:33
    
@Kyudos: I thought it was quite a nice turn of phrase, and I figured echoing it back was a good way of light-heartedly acknowledging that. But I certainly agree with you that build/buy for cheap is a lot more acceptable than for expensive, even if it doesn't exactly come up to the gold standard (i.e. - my idea of "grammaticality"! :) –  FumbleFingers Jan 23 '13 at 23:41
    
I would use 'for cheap' (UK) though I agree it doesn't make grammatical sense. It's just one of those things. –  Mynamite Jan 25 '13 at 0:45
1  
@FumbleFingers An interesting and useful discussion, to which I don't have much constructive to add, but having talked about resultative constructions this weekend, I couldn't help but notice your adjectival/adverbial split. No, both cheap and cheaply are adverbial in this case. However, in They sell them cheap, cheap is adjectival, just as in They sold them damaged.But I bought them damaged involves a cognitive process quite different from the one involved in I bought them cheap.I didn't buy them SUCH that they were cheap;I bought them IN A WAY that they were cheap for me. Cheap-ly. –  Talia Ford Sep 30 '13 at 1:04
1  
@Talia: Yeah - I know it's being used adverbially. But if you ask someone which is adjective and which is adverb out of cheap and cheaply you know what the answer will be. And obviously it's perfectly possible to use the "correct/regular" version and buy it cheaply. Your comment is useful, but I'm still happy with what I originally wrote. –  FumbleFingers Sep 30 '13 at 2:52
show 3 more comments

Perhaps it's a spin off of for free, such as

If you can't get it for free, at least get it for cheap.

It could be understood to mean

get it for [a] cheap [price]

In either case, it is colloquial at best. I have heard it as a slang expression in the US.

As to why it is less jarring than for expensive, I don't know. As an antonym, for dear might be arguably more acceptable (if only because it maintains the abbreviated, single syllable style), although I can't say I have heard it in the US.

share|improve this answer
    
I've heard it in from the Irish and the British also. It could perhaps be a hyper-correction of the adverb sense of cheap as in "I bought it cheap". –  Jon Hanna Jan 24 '13 at 2:33
    
+1 for get it for [a] cheap [price]: suddenly everything makes sense now. –  user19341 Jan 24 '13 at 9:00
add comment

'for free' is incorrect; something is either 'free' or 'for nothing.' It just sounds normal because many people say it now.

share|improve this answer
3  
How can it not be correct if many people say it? –  Barrie England Jan 26 '13 at 12:04
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.