She pointed at the ice cream that she wanted.

[99bottles]

She pointed at the ice cream that she wanted.

I found that sentence on Macmillan. I have heard that point at has a negative/accusing connotation, whereas point to is more neutral. But in this sentence, I don't think she pointed at the ice cream to accuse it of something. So what's the difference between point to and point at?

 

[jutfrank]

Different prepositions have different meanings, so in order to your answer your own question, I think you need to focus on and isolate this basic difference in meaning.

You might try to get at this difference by considering a different pair. Read the following two sentences and think about any difference you sense:

a) She threw the shoe to him.
b) She threw the shoe at him.

 

[99bottles]

Different prepositions have different meanings, so in order to your answer your own question, I think you need to focus on and isolate this basic difference in meaning.

You might try to get at this difference by considering a different pair. Read the following two sentences and think about any difference you sense:

a) She threw the shoe to him.
b) She threw the shoe at him.

So, in the sentence I wrote, should it be She pointed to the ice cream she wanted?

 

[Tarheel]

I think so.

 

[99bottles]

I think so.

Is there any difference between point at someone and point a finger at someone?

 

[emsr2d2]

Not unless you're in the habit of pointing at someone with some other part of your anatomy than your finger!

Bear in mind that we do use "point the finger at someone" to mean "accuse someone of something". No physical pointing is required.

(Spooky coincidence - while I was writing this response, a character in a TV show I was watching said "That's very unfair. There's really no need to go pointing fingers!" It was used in the accusing sense I mentioned above.)

 

[99bottles]

Update: I found this thread and, in the last post, someone gives a detailed explanation. Do you agree with what they say?
https://forum.thefreedictionary.com...erence-between--point-to--and--point-at-.aspx

 

[SoothingDave]

I don't think "to" or "at" makes a difference when discussing someone gesturing towards some ice cream.

 

[99bottles]

I don't think "to" or "at" makes a difference when discussing someone gesturing towards some ice cream.

So does that difference apply only to people?

 

[SoothingDave]

Unless the situation is such that the ice cream could be responsible for something, then no it doesn't apply.

It could be something like "the investigation of the car crash pointed to the brakes as being faulty."

 

[emsr2d2]

So does that difference apply only to people?

In some cases, there's no difference even when talking about people.

He pointed at Amy = He pointed to Amy

Context (as always) might suggest a difference but, as standalone sentences, we know one thing - he pointed a finger in Amy's direction.

 

[jutfrank]

I think there's always a difference in meaning, even when this difference is so inconsequential as not to matter. This is what I was trying to begin to show you in my previous post.

DragOnspeaker in the final post on the other forum has got the essential gist of the difference, I think, though I disagree on some points.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think there's always a difference in meaning, even when this difference is so inconsequential as not to matter.

That's a fair point. I used to use a (slightly amusing) way, however, of explaining to my students what I meant by "no [real] difference in meaning". I used to get them to draw the sentence, using only the ideas/concepts that were clear from the words.

In the case of "He pointed to Amy" and "He pointed at Amy", the drawings would be identical. There would be a man extending a finger in the direction of Amy. There is no way, based on the words in those two sentences, for the drawings not to look exactly the same.

Most of my students hated me for this, mainly because they all claimed not to have any artistic ability at all. Some interesting pictures resulted! However, one of my students was actually a professional artist so his drawings were fantastic. I really wish I'd kept them!

 

[jutfrank]

I get your point, emsr2d2, but I think that your drawing activity is lacking if it can't express (easily) the kind of meaning that is not able to be represented as imagery. This could largely be down to a lack of artistic skills, too, though.

He threw the book to me.
He threw the book at me.

Is the obvious difference in meaning in this pair something that you'd consider would yield identical pictures? I mean, we can clearly say that in both sentences there is a sense of directionality, but do you think we can say 'only one thing'—that he threw the book in my direction?

(I don't for one second wish to discredit your drawing activity, by the way. I think it's a really great idea.)

 

[emsr2d2]

If my students had some artistic ability and understood the difference, I would expect the picture of "He threw the book to me" to have one person throwing a book and the other with their hands out, clearly aiming to catch it. The picture of "He threw the book at me" would be someone throwing the book and the other person not trying to catch it (or even having a look of shock on their face or ducking). If my student drew identical pictures for the two sentences, that would have told me they didn't understand the difference. However, I rarely used the drawing technique for two sentences that I did not consider to be (to all intents and purposes) identical in meaning so I wouldn't have asked them to do it with those two sentences.

A lack of artistic skill certainly limited the benefits of the exercise, I readily admit. Mind you, they could all draw better than I can! It was fun, though.

 

[99bottles]

I think there's always a difference in meaning, even when this difference is so inconsequential as not to matter. This is what I was trying to begin to show you in my previous post.

DragOnspeaker in the final post on the other forum has got the essential gist of the difference, I think, though I disagree on some points.

And why don't you tell me which points you disagree on?

 

[jutfrank]

And why don't you tell me which points you disagree on?

Why don't you ask in a nicer way?

 

[99bottles]

Why don't you ask in a nicer way?

Tell me which points you disagree on and, when my era begins, I won't forget you.

 

[jutfrank]

How can I resist, 99bottles? You sure have a charming way with words. You should be a writer.

Here's what I disagree with:

1) The admittedly weak suggestion that there is a AmE/BrE difference.
2) The focus on a sense of purpose.

And before you so politely ask, and because I haven't got anything better to do at 1 am, I'll give you my own explanation, in my own terms.

Use to to express a sense of destination. The object of the preposition of to is always in some way a final point of some kind. If I throw my shoe to you, you are the destination of the shoe. And in the context we're discussing here, if the girl points to an ice cream, the idea is that our eyes follow a line from her finger, to arrive at the destination of the ice cream. This is likely because she wishes to communicate something to someone.

Use at to express a sense of target. The object of the preposition at is seen as a target. If I look, or smile, or frown, or wink at you, then I see you as a target of some kind. If I throw my shoe at you, it's because I want to hit you. In our ice cream context, the girl is also seeing the ice cream as a target. There's no sense of communication at all, and heaven knows why she might be doing this. Maybe she's accusing it of looking simply too scrummy. I don't know.

So if the idea that the writer wants to express is that the girl is showing the vendor what flavour she wants, then to is better.

Tell me—does that make sense to you? I'll PM you my bank details.

 

[Tarheel]

See if you agree with this. If you throw something at somebody it is likely to be overhand. If you throw something to somebody it is more likely to be underhand.