0

This question already has an answer here:

There are two sentences like this.

  1. The hunter shot at the bird.
  2. The hunter shot the bird.

Maybe I think that 'shot at' in number 1 sentence means that the hunter shot the bird but missed it. whereas hunter in number 2 sentence succeeded. What's the difference between 'shot' and 'shot at'in meaning? Please, tell me the difference.

marked as duplicate by ColleenV Feb 28 '18 at 21:03

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • It's not shot and shot at. It shot and shot |at the bird|. – Lambie Feb 28 '18 at 23:23
3

You're mostly correct. "Shot at" means that the hunter did fire a shot, and that it was fired toward the bird, likely also that the hunter was trying to shoot the bird. It doesn't imply for sure that he did or didn't hit the bird (except for the contextual implication that if he did hit the bird, why didn't you just say "he shot the bird"?).

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