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.
-
related: Rule for using “for” vs. “to” and When to use “to” and when “for”?– CameronCommented May 22, 2012 at 1:47
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
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.
-
Hmm.. reading the links Cameron posted makes me feel that they are not interchangeable, i.e., "Japan is suited to agriculture" would be wrong. Commented May 22, 2012 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.
