0

all. What is more natural to use here - 'to' or 'with' ?

A: Where is Pete? What have you done to/with him?

B: He wasn't much of a help.

A: So what? You killed him?

B: That's right.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Both are practically interchangeable in most cases. One case where it matters - if "Pete" was present in the room, you couldn't use "What have you done with him" - it implies that you want to know what has happened to Pete because he is not present. Whereas "What have you done to him" can work in either case - it could indicate horror at seeing poor Pete's corpse and wondering how he got that way, or because you assume he isn't present because of actions taken by the person you're talking to.
    – mjjf
    Feb 28, 2021 at 4:11
  • One more note - in this case "to" sounds more aggressive. When you do something "to" someone, it's more likely to the target's detriment. Whereas you could do something "with" someone and it could be fairly harmless - like getting rid of Pete by sending him on a wild goose chase on the other side of town.
    – mjjf
    Feb 28, 2021 at 4:20

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .