An answer. - Edit 1
Before modification by The Shrike at 09/11/2017 06:54:58 PM
View original post
It seems that the former is one of a myriad of debased grammatical practices on certain islands which shall remain nameless, including an excessive affection for the letter "u" and a pathological hatred for the letter "z", to the point that not only do they fail to spell many words properly with it, they refuse to name it out loud, calling it "zed". But I digress. Those are just preferences which may be attributed to inbreeding or local parasites or allergens or something. Using "to" instead of "from" would seem to be completely opposite meanings, as that is the literal denotation of those words.
It seems that the former is one of a myriad of debased grammatical practices on certain islands which shall remain nameless, including an excessive affection for the letter "u" and a pathological hatred for the letter "z", to the point that not only do they fail to spell many words properly with it, they refuse to name it out loud, calling it "zed". But I digress. Those are just preferences which may be attributed to inbreeding or local parasites or allergens or something. Using "to" instead of "from" would seem to be completely opposite meanings, as that is the literal denotation of those words.
So which makes more sense when used in the manner described?