to or for

In my experience, 'destitute' normally describes a person, not a place.

Clive

vsureshboth seem OK to me.

They both seem OK to me as well. I prefer "to".

I think you mean "dilapidated" rather than "destitute". Not sure what you mean there.

CJ

Thank you Clive and CJ.

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear.

I wanted to say she was running a Home for destitutes.

Her Home for destitutes is an asylum to/for many.

Can you tell me if there is any difference in meaning?

No real difference.
Perhaps 'to' stresses a bit that the destitute people think of it as an asylum.

Clive

Thank you, Clive.

Please help me these sentences. Tell me if I think right.

This lake has become a home for fishes. (stress on the who has benefitted)

This lake has become a home to fishes. (stress on the thing here lake which is helping someone)

I see no real difference here. Probably because we have no idea what fish are thinking.


[ The natural word in your examples is 'fish', not 'fishes'. This ha been discussed endlessly on the Forum.

Thank you,Clive.

Clive[ The natural word in your examples is 'fish', not 'fishes'. This ha been discussed endlessly on the Forum. ]

I'm sorry. I will remember it.