fragile

When I'm going to mean that 'I'm weak at particularly something' using the word fragile, which preposition goes well with the word fragile?

I'm fragile with cold?
I'm fragile of cold?
I'm fragile at cold?

>>I'm not sure. Things are rarely fragile in Wisconsin.<<

The above post is not by me.

As for the original question, one would generally not use the word "fragile" in this kind of fashion in English to begin with.

Thank you Travis.
I knew the word would not be used in the context, but I just wanted to know what preposition natives should select when assumed it was acceptable.


Then, how about
The system is fragile with
The system is fragile of
The system is fragile at
The system is fragile by
.
.
.
?

if, the expressions are also not proper,

anyway what goes with 'fragile'?
With?
like 'a glass cup is fragile with a fall'?

fragile is not an english word. It is just a french word that have been used in english to sound more snobbish during the 18th century.

"Fragile" is an English word. You wouldn't usually put anything with "fragile". For example "A glass is fragile."

"Fragile" means weak in general. You can't talk about a specific weakness with it.

You can talk about emotional fragility, as in "She's in a fragile state of mind right now," or "feeling fragile". You can say that glass is fragile, and use it the same way you would use "delicate" or "breakable". So it's not really synonymous with just any kind of weakness, only the kind that involves breakage or shattering.

Cold would not usually make you "fragile", in the sense you're trying to suggest with your examples:

I'm fragile with cold?
I'm fragile of cold?
I'm fragile at cold?

I would probably pick another word to describe that state, like "numb". Then you would be able to use the words "with" or "from", but not "of" or "by" or "at".

<<'a glass cup is fragile with a fall'?>>

You would never say this in English, and I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. If you can clarify it a little bit, i can probably suggest how you might word it.

What I meant by 'a glass cup is fragile with a fall' is
a glass cup easily breaks when it fell to the ground.

I just wanted to express it in another way.
We say 'a glass is fragile' only because we assume it's a gereral case, mostly when it fell. However, if a glass were to break only when it fell not when it's hit by a car, or thrown to a wall, we need to be more specific with it. So, if a glass or something else were only fragile in relation to a certain situation.. how should I say?



Sorry that I have to ask this weird question.
Maybe I'm missing a point or picked wrong word, but I still need answers!
Thank you.

<<What I meant by 'a glass cup is fragile with a fall' is
a glass cup easily breaks when it fell to the ground. >>

Well, those two sentences are not equivalent. Fragility is not the quality of breaking, just the quality of being breakABLE in general; you don't usually qualify it by specifying in which situations; if something's fragile, it's usually ALWAYS fragile.

Generally you will not say "glass cup"; you will just call it "a glass". And you will say "A glass breaks easily when it FALLS to the ground." You can also use "if" instead of "when", or "easily broken" instead of "breaks easily".

If you want to paraphrase your original sentence, you might try "A glass is easily broken in a fall."

You could replace cold with "brittle". That would apply to emotional coldness as well as literal coldness - many things when frozen become brittle.

How about "A glass cup experiences fragility particularly if(or when) it falls"? Does that work?