0
Angliholic Posted 19 years ago
Grammar

set on him

Even though the man meant no harm, the hungry tiger set on/jump on him at once.

I'd like to know if "set on" and "jump on" both work in the above context and mean the same. Thanks.
  

Top answer

Hi, Even though the man meant no harm, the hungry tiger set on/jump ed on him at once. I'd like to know if "set on" and "jump ed on" both work in the above context and mean the same. Generally, yes.

— Clive

  • Hi, Even though the man meant no harm, the hungry tiger set on/jump ed on him at once.
  • I'd like to know if "set on" and "jump ed on" both work in the above context and mean the same.
  • Generally, yes.
  • 'Set about' is better than 'set on', but 'set' in this sense is seldom used today.
  • More common would be simply 'attacked him'.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

3 Answers
0
Hi,

Even though the man meant no harm, the hungry tiger set on/jumped on him at once.

I'd like to know if "set on" and "jumped on" both work in the above context and mean the same.

Generally, yes. 'Set about' is better than 'set on', but 'set' in thi
0
0
I could not agree more with Clive.
0
0
Thanks, Clive and Jain.
0

Related Questions