Sth. is [adj.] for/to sb.

Question

Can anyone tell me what's the difference between general uses of "for" and "to" in the pattern of "sth. is (adj.) for/to sb." ?

For example, try compare:
(1) This news is important to me.
(2) This news is important for me.
My perception is that "to" signifies objectivity while "for" means that the statement is the speaker's subjective opinion.

Regards,
Yao

Usenet · Accepted Answer

} Can anyone tell me what's the difference between general uses of "for" } and "to" in the pattern of "sth. is (adj.) for/to sb." ? }
} For example, try compare:
} (1) This news is important to me.
} (2) This news is important for me.
}
} My perception is that "to" signifies objectivity while "for" means that } the statement is the speaker's subjective opinion.

It's a little hard to tease apart with the speaker being "me", but I'd agree if "me" were "him" or "her".

R. J. Valentine

Usenet · Answer

wrote on 24 Feb 2005:
[nq:1]Can anyone tell me what's the difference between general uses of "for" and "to" in the pattern of "sth. is ... for me. My perception is that "to" signifies objectivity while "for" means that the statement is the speaker's subjective opinion.[/nq]
I don't quite agree with this. "To me" means simply that "I attach importance to this news" (maybe because I'm interested in it even though it will never have an effect on my life), but "for me" means that the news will have some effect on my life.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"The only problem with seeing too much is that
it makes you insane." Phaedrus

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Can anyone tell me what's the difference between general uses of "for" and "to" in the pattern of "sth. is ... for me. My perception is that "to" signifies objectivity while "for" means that the statement is the speaker's subjective opinion.[/nq]
You're looking at it the wrong way. Prepositions are governed by the predicate adjective and rarely contribute any meaning differences by themselves. Change the adjective and you'll change the prepositions and their possible meaning differences; you can't calculate this by starting with the prepositions.
He was happy *to/for/with me.
He was rude to/*for/with me.
Many experiential predicate adjectives that deal with emotions can take one or both of 'to' or 'for' with an experiencer object; when both are possible, the 'for' variant may contrast by focussing on the personal experience, while the 'to' variant merely indicates the indentity of the experiencer.

It was nice *to/for me.
It was interesting to/for me.
It was boring ?to/for me.
It was suspicious to/??for me.
It was exciting ?to/for me.
But every such adjective has, in principle, its own pattern of prepositional use and meaning contrasts. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Predicates are what's important; everything else is just window decoration.

-John Lawler University of Michigan Linguistics Dept http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/
"... and, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."

Usenet · Answer

Yes, I know a predicate word has dominant power in determining which prepositions to use for its arguments.
I guessed there might be an authoritative analysis on the difference between the two choices when "both are possible", but now I don't think there is such an analysis. Nobody can be absolutely authoritative to prescribe language usages. I used Google to investigate occurrences of "important to" and "important for", and it just seemed that people were choosing at random, or subject to personal preferences or whichever sounds more beautiful.

Usenet · Answer

(Email Removed) wrote on 24 Feb 2005:
[nq:1]Yes, I know a predicate word has dominant power in determining which prepositions to use for its arguments. I guessed ... and it just seemed that people were choosing at random, or subject to personal preferences or whichever sounds more beautiful.[/nq]
There are some users who make a meaning distinction for reasons we cannot logically or rationally explain. My distinction, for example, comes from my reading and from analogy with the difference between "to" and "for" in "good to me" and "good for me": castor oil may be good for* me when I'm constipated, but it can never be good *to* me; my girlfriend can be good *to me, but if she is the reason my wife is divorcing me, my employer is firing me, and my doctor is telling me that I am HIV-positive, then she isn't good for me.

Even though Prof Lawler might say that this is merely a case of two different adjectives (good and important) governing their following prepositions in different ways, I would still maintain that there is usually a semantic difference between "important to me" and "important for me" there is for me, at least.
I wouldn't argue that there is always a discernable semantic difference between "important to" and "important for", though. Most of the time, it seems to me, it's a question of idiom and not meaning. For example, I don't know whether a chemist would say that X, a catalyst, is important "to" or "for" a reaction or a process, and looking it up provides nothing significant. I found 76 hits for "important for this reaction" but only 14 for "important to this reaction".

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"The only problem with seeing too much is that
it makes you insane." Phaedrus

Usenet · Answer

76:14 can tell nothing. Neither of them is statistically significant.

Usenet · Answer

wrote on 24 Feb 2005:
[nq:1]76:14 can tell nothing. Neither of them is statistically significant.[/nq]
That's what I said.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"The only problem with seeing too much is that
it makes you insane." Phaedrus

Sth. is [adj.] for/to sb.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions