subject x subjected

[beachboy]

Japan was subject to a tsunami last month
Japan was subjected to a tsunami last month
What's the difference between the two sentences? Which one sounds better?

[birdeen's call]

I think that only the first one makes sense. On hearing the second I would ask, "Who subjected Japan to the tsunami?"

[Verona_82]

subject to/subjected to
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...subjected.html

(A search box in the top right-hand corner is a valuable tool).

[nyota]

I feel the same about the second one as birdeen.

I wonder if Japan was subject to a tsunami last month doesn't rather imply that Japan was only likely to be affected by it?

[5jj]

I would not say either, but I'd go for the second, if I had to choose,

Japan was subjected to a tsunami last month.

Japan suffered, underwent the tsunami; there was no regulation about it.

[freezeframe]

Despite some enthusiasm in this thread for sentence #1, I'm with fivejedjon -- sentence #1 makes no sense.

[BobK]

- and I believe I said as much in the other thread (or maybe I only meant to ). As nyota said, if something's 'subject to' something, it's only likely to happen.

But in BC's defence, official notices almost always play on this distinction. They say things like 'Transport for London regrets that District Line trains will be subject to delays' [not true - they will be delayed, although the message only says they might be.]

(In short, I think there was a distinction, but abuses have become so common that a change in meaning could be said to be under way.)

b