0
Gene93 Posted 7 years ago
Grammar

To hunt something/to hunt for something

Hello,

Is there any difference between: "We hunted for rabbits in the hills" and "We hunted rabbits in the hills"? I don't know why, but I think that "to hunt rabbits" could be more active "to hunt for rabbits". It also suggests to me that they actually caught one or two (or more, who knows...) rabbits. I am probably wrong, so I'd like to know what you think.


Thank you.

  

Top answer

Gene93 I don't know why, but I think that "to hunt rabbits" could be more active than? "to hunt for rabbits". It doesn't strike me that way.

— CalifJim

  • Gene93 I don't know why, but I think that "to hunt rabbits" could be more active than?
  • "to hunt for rabbits".
  • It doesn't strike me that way.
  • My first take on it is that they are exactly the same in meaning.
  • My second take on it is that if you hunt for rabbits, you have to hope there are rabbits where you're going hunting, and try to find the rabbits first, and then shoot them.
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
Gene93 I don't know why, but I think that "to hunt rabbits" could be more active than? "to hunt for rabbits".

It doesn't strike me that way.

My first take on it is that they are exactly the same in meaning.

My second take on it is that if you hunt for rabbits, you have to hope there are rabbits where you're go

0
0
Gene93We hunted for rabbits in the hills"

Wildlife biologists looked to see if there were rabbits living there.

Hunting rabbits - they were hungry and wanted rabbit stew.




0
0

The meaning of the two is the same. The difference, if any, is stylistic. The sentence rhythm is different with each, as the result of the different number of words. The first is more ordinary-sounding. This is what you'd normally hear. The second is more aggressive-sounding and literary in tone.

0

Related Questions