(redirected from partakes)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.
Like this video? Subscribe to our free daily email and get a new idiom video every day!

partake in

To share or participate in some activity. It has recently come to light that the senator partook in secret meetings with foreign spies. I do not partake in spreading rumors, thank you very much.
See also: partake

partake of (something)

1. To eat, drink, or ingest something; to consume something. Let us partake of a light supper before we begin our journey. I never partake of drugs or alcohol.
2. To experience or take part in something; to avail of something. There were hundreds of people partaking of the numerous activities at the county fair. He decided to go to the more expensive university in New York rather than partake of a free college education in his home state.
See also: of, partake
Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2022 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.

partake in something

to participate in something. Valerie does not care to partake in those childish games. I would like to partake in the fun.
See also: partake

partake of something

1. to have a portion of something, such as food or drink. Would you care to partake of this apple pie with me? I would like to partake of that fine dinner I see set out on the table.
2. to take part in or experience something. Sarah had always wanted to partake of the good life. Roger had no intention of partaking of the events offered at the fair.
See also: of, partake
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

partake in

To participate in some activity; share in something: The reporter criticized the company that partook in the secret meeting with government officials.
See also: partake

partake of

To use, consume, or participate in something shared with others: I hope that the guests will partake of the delicious dinner I prepared.
See also: of, partake
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
See also:
References in periodicals archive ?
(33) The essence of which a self-identical bodily thing partakes is distinct from indivisible essence and identity.
For example, though every form partakes of Difference and so is different from every other form, it does not follow that all the forms are the same in virtue of partaking of Difference.
Similarly, each form is different from the others because it partakes of the form of Difference, not because of its own nature.
Whatever the words "its own nature" can mean, they must refer to something other than that of which the form of Difference partakes. (46)
That which a form partakes of is what the form's name names or its essence, "itself according to itself' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]).
As for how this applies to the intelligible world, let us return for a moment to the implication of the deductions for the "greatest kinds." The form of Difference is different from other forms because it partakes of the form of Difference, not because of its own nature, that is, not because its own nature is just different from every other form.
Necessarily, it is uniquely not a composite of "that which exists" and "the essence of which it partakes." The identity that the subordinate forms possess does guarantee their own sort of uniqueness, too.
That is, it must be a composite of that which identifies it as this existent and the essence of which it partakes. To claim that identity precludes sameness, from a Platonic perspective, amounts to claiming that each identical thing is utterly unique in the way that only the form of the Good can be utterly unique.
A substance or individual exists because it has essence (= (iii) "partakes of essence" in Plato's language).
255e4-6: "For each one is different from the others, not owing to its own nacre but owing to the fact that it partakes of the Idea of Difference" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.].
However, these relations are not among existents that have any essence apart from that of which they "partake." Consider the contrast between Helen's partaking of beauty and the Difference of which the form of Identity partakes.
That is, each one of "the others" partakes of essence; if it did not, it would not exist.
This is the argument that: If that which is one is ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), then is it possible for it to be but not to partake of ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) essence ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.])?--It could not.--Now, that which is one's essence would be, too, not being identical with that which is one; otherwise, that essence would not be its essence, nor would it, that which is one, partake of that essence, but saying that that which is one is would be like saying that that which is one is one.