Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

Hiroaki Sone · Joined: 29 Oct 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Sendai, Japan

Hi.

How are you? Fine, I hope!

The Pakistani Army's fumbled response to the devastating Himalayan earthquake has stirred resentment of the military-led government in Islamabad.

Can you use for, on or over in place of of without changing the meaning?

Hiro/Sendai, Japan

Educationslave · Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 pm Post subject:

in this sentance, for would be more natural, but on and over would change the meaning.

Hiroaki Sone · Joined: 29 Oct 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Sendai, Japan

On and over then implies the resentment is about what the government has done, but it is blurry the responsibility is on them, right?

Hiro/ Sendai, Japan

Educationslave · Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:31 am Post subject:

yes. on and over are both words to mean above something. you cant really have resentment above something.
ES

Hiroaki Sone · Joined: 29 Oct 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Sendai, Japan

Hi, ES.

You said "above something." You mean "about something," don't you?

Much appreciated.

Hiro/ Sendai, Japan

Educationslave · Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject:

no, on and over both mean to be above something, farther up, physicllay than it. they are often used as a particle meaning about but they both mean above. take for example:
the cat went over the hill. meaning that the cat went up one side and down the other; over the hill.
and on:
the cat sat on the hill. meaning that the cat is atop the hill; on the hill.
there are certain cases where it CAN BE sysnonomous with for, about, and of but it is not allways so.
hope i made it clearer...
ES