1

What is grammatical error in below given sentence?

Our beloved Prime Minister is known to the prominent figures all over the world.

My book says there is no error in this sentence, but I think there should be 'for' in the place of 'to', because anybody is known 'for something' not 'to something'.

1
  • 2
    Changing to to for would be completely ungrammatical / nonsensical. You're known for the attributes or deeds that make people aware of your existence, but you're known to those people who are aware of your existence. The only non-idiomatic aspect of the cited text is that native speakers would almost never include the, but it's not actually ungrammatical to do so. Oct 6 '16 at 15:10
4

There is no error in the sentence. Yes, known for is a standard phrase, but it does not mean the same thing as known to.

known for X: famous or widely recognized because of reason X
known to X: familiar to person X; person X knows him (In this context, at least. It can mean slightly different things in other contexts.)

So the meaning is that our beloved Prime Minister is familiar to prominent figures all over the world, not "our beloved Prime Minister is widely known because of the reason of 'prominent figures all over the world'" (which doesn't even really make sense).

1
  • You might want to address the inclusion, in the original, of "the" ("to the prominent individuals"). You've excluded it in your answer, without explanation.
    – Mark G B
    Aug 4 at 13:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.