In the sentence-
You must wear a suit to an interview
shouldn't the to be replaced by for? Or what's the difference between these two here?
prepositions
In the sentence-
You must wear a suit to an interview
shouldn't the to be replaced by for? Or what's the difference between these two here?
Best Answer
The difference is fairly slight. Some cases you could use either and others one or the other would only work.
To would be used for a location or an event (could imply motion)
For would be for a purpose, benefit, etc
The trick is that a location/event is often a purpose; your purpose is to go to that location/event. With verbs ("to wear to run"), the trick is that some words can be both verbs or nouns (e.g. run as a noun is an event of running). In these cases, both may be grammatical, but slightly change the meaning.
Examples:
Either of these works because a wedding is either the event or the purpose for wearing the suit.
Bank is a location so this works.
This still could make sense, but it would be somewhat less commonly used than to the bank.
Purpose, so it works
This doesn't make sense.
versus
You cannot wear a hat "for garden"; for in this case would expect a noun, which then needs an article ("a garden" or "the garden") and would now be a location.
If you say
You've changed the meaning slightly; gardening is now an "event" as opposed to an intended action (purpose).