towards

[Taka]

She walked towards the station.

If 'towards' was replaced with 'for', would it still sound OK and make the same sense?

 

[Rover_KE]

No to both questions.

Rover

 

[Taka]

Then what about this?

This is the train for New York.

I don't think it's possible to replace 'for' above with 'towards' as:

This is the train towards New York.


So why does 'walk towards [place]' work whereas 'walk for [place]' doesn't? And why does 'the train for [place]' work whereas 'the train towards [place]' doesn't?

 

[Rover_KE]

The question's moot for me.

I catch the train to Blackpool then walk to work.

Rover

 

[emsr2d2]

I would use "for" when talking about a railway station platform or an airport gate:

Which platform is it for Nottingham?
Which gate do I need for the Chicago flight?

If I talk about the actual form of transport, then I would use "to":

Is this the train to Nottingham?
Is this flight going to Chicago?

I wouldn't use "towards" in either of those circumstances.

 

[5jj]

If I talk about the actual form of transport, then I would use "to":

Is this the train to Nottingham?
Is this flight going to Chicago?

I could use 'for' or 'to' in those two, but I certainly would not use 'towards'.

 

[Taka]

I could use 'for' or 'to' in those two

Then do you see the train to Nottingham, for example, as exactly the same as the train for Nottingham?

 

[5jj]

Then do you see the train to Nottingham, for example, as exactly the same as the train for Nottingham?

Yes, for all practical purposes.

 

[Taka]

I've heard that 'the train to X' has a stronger implication of directness to the destination.

Would you disagree?

 

[5jj]

I've heard that 'the train to X' has a stronger implication of directness to the destination.
Would you disagree?

Having already said that, for all practical purposes, they are exactly the same, yes.

 

[emsr2d2]

I've heard that 'the train to X' has a stronger implication of directness to the destination.

Would you disagree?

Yes, I would disagree. The train to Nottingham and the train for Nottingham might both go there direct (non-stop) or they might stop at various stations along the way. There is no way to tell simply from the preposition.

 

[Taka]

Really?

I guess you would say 'a direct train to Nottingham', but not 'a direct train for Nottingham', or would you?

 

[5jj]

You could speak of a direct train for Nottingham

 

[Taka]

Really!? Hmm...'Direct to...' is familiar to me, but personally, I haven't seen 'direct for...'

Anyway, tell me, what really is the difference between 'movement to [place]', 'movement for [place]' and 'movement towards [place]'?

 

[emsr2d2]

Really!? Hmm...'Direct to...' is familiar to me, but personally, I haven't seen 'direct for...'

Nobody said that "direct for" was correct. The sentence posted was "the direct train for Nottingham".

It's a direct train.
For where?
For Nottingham.

 

[5jj]

And nobody said that 'movement for' was correct. We were speaking of the train for Nottingham, i.e. the train which was going to go to (not 'for') Nottingham.

 

[Taka]

So 'for' in 'the train for [place]' doesn't indicate the destination, the direction of the train's movement? If not, what does it mean?

 

[emsr2d2]

And nobody said that 'movement for' was correct. We were speaking of the train for Nottingham, i.e. the train which was going go to (not 'for') Nottingham.

??? 5jj - missing word? Extra word? ;-)

 

[Taka]

Let me ask this way. What is the difference between these three? No difference at all?

Are you going to head to the building?
Are you going to head towards the building?
Are you going to head for the building?

 

[5jj]

So 'for' in 'the train for [place]' doesn't indicate the destination, the direction of the train's movement? If not, what does it mean?

It means that the place named after 'for' is one of the stations at which the train will be stopping.