+0
Hello guys!

I'm a bit troubled with uses of English "FOR" and "TO" for destination.

My E-J dictionary says there is some semantic difference between
(1) "He took a train to Tokyo" and (2) "He took a train for Tokyo".
The dictionary is saying that:
By #1, we have to take that "he" got off at Tokyo.
But by #2, we need not to do so.

Do you agree to this?

"You have to take a train to Paris and get off at Brussels".
Does it sound odd to you?

Thanks in advance.
+0
Hi,

I'm a bit troubled with uses of English "FOR" and "TO" for destination.

My E-J dictionary says there is some semantic difference between
(1) "He took a train to Tokyo" and (2) "He took a train for Tokyo".
The dictionary is saying that:
By #1, we have to take that "he" got off at Tokyo.
But by #2, we need not to do so.

Do you agree to this? Yes, I agree generally with this, although people do not always use these prepositions with such precise intentions of meaning. However, note that 'a train for Tokyo' sounds rather old-fashioned to me. You'll more commonly hear 'to Tokyo' today.

"You have to take a train to Paris and get off at Brussels".
Does it sound odd to you? Yes, a bit. Why not just say
"You have to take a train to Brussels"?

Best wishes, Clive
Comments  
AnonymousHello guys!

I'm a bit troubled with uses of English "FOR" and "TO" for destination.

My E-J dictionary says there is some semantic difference between
(1) "He took a train to Tokyo" and (2) "He took a train for Tokyo".
The dictionary is saying that:
By #1, we have to take that "he" got off at Tokyo.
But by #2, we need not to do so.

Do you agree to this?

"You have to take a train to Paris and get off at Brussels".
Does it sound odd to you?

Thanks in advance.

(1) "He took a train to " = He went to on a train.

(2) "He took a train for ". Semantically, it’s incorrect. But if we say “he took a

train heading for ", it then is correct.