In the sentence-
You must wear a suit to an interview
shouldn't the to be replaced by for? Or what's the difference between these two here?
Answer
The difference is fairly slight. Some cases you could use either and others one or the other would only work.
To would be used for a location or an event (could imply motion)
For would be for a purpose, benefit, etc
The trick is that a location/event is often a purpose; your purpose is to go to that location/event. With verbs ("to wear to run"), the trick is that some words can be both verbs or nouns (e.g. run as a noun is an event of running). In these cases, both may be grammatical, but slightly change the meaning.
Examples:
You must wear a suit to the wedding
You must wear a suit for the wedding
Either of these works because a wedding is either the event or the purpose for wearing the suit.
You must wear shoes to the bank
Bank is a location so this works.
You must wear shoes for the bank
This still could make sense, but it would be somewhat less commonly used than to the bank.
You must wear boots for safety
Purpose, so it works
You must wear boots to safety
This doesn't make sense.
You must wear a hat to garden
versus
You must wear a hat for gardening
You cannot wear a hat "for garden"; for in this case would expect a noun, which then needs an article ("a garden" or "the garden") and would now be a location.
If you say
You must wear a hat to gardening
You've changed the meaning slightly; gardening is now an "event" as opposed to an intended action (purpose).
No comments:
Post a Comment