English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a difference between suited to and suited for? For example,

Japan is suited for agriculture.

Agriculture is suited to Japan.

In my above examples, can I interchange for with to? I feel like there is a difference, but I cannot figure it out.

share|improve this question

Suited to mean right for someone or something may be used with to or for.

Japan is suited to/for agriculture

means that Japan is right for agriculture, while

Agriculture is suited to/for Japan

means that agriculture is right for Japan.

share|improve this answer
Hmm.. reading the links Cameron posted makes me feel that they are not interchangeable, i.e., "Japan is suited to agriculture" would be wrong. – Jesse Good May 22 '12 at 1:54

As is pointed out in one of Cameron's links above, prepositions are often decided more by usage at native-speaker level than by rules. In the case of suited, I would say that only "suited to" is correct. The use of "for" is, however, correct in "suitable for" (We do not write "suitable to"). Some examples given elsewhere for "suited for" are misleading as they substitute "suited" inappropriately for a different word that would correctly use "for", e.g. "bad for me". So: Japan is suitable for /suited to agriculture. Agriculture is suitable for /suited to Japan. Sorry for the late post, but it seems worth mentioning.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.