(i) Donald Trump just got shot at!
(ii) Donald Trump just got shot!
I saw a tweet with the former text but it was edited as the later then.
-
18This question is similar to: Shoot, Shoot At. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.– Kai BurghardtCommented Jul 14 at 15:23
-
3DJT was both shot and shot at. Several shots were fired, only one of which one hit Trump but others caused fatalities.– Weather VaneCommented Jul 14 at 21:52
-
1For many years, ending a sentence with a preposition was considered poor English. So #1 would be rejected. But over time as the language perpetually is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, what used to be mark of a poor education becomes ignored, rationalized, and then accepted. Eventually we will all speak in emoticons. :-)– JoeCommented Jul 15 at 19:56
-
2@Joe: How do you propose amending "Donald Trump just got shot at" to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition? It can't be done. The rule was always ridiculous, and ignored by anybody with a feel for the English language.– TonyKCommented Jul 16 at 0:34
-
1@Joe: Does Shakespeare count as poor English in your estimation? Just in Hamlet's soliloquy, we have (i) "The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks / That Flesh is heir to"; and (ii) "And makes us rather bear those ills we have, / Than fly to others that we know not of?"– TonyKCommented Jul 16 at 20:04
|
Show 7 more comments
5 Answers
To say that someone "shot at" someone else is to say that the first person fired a gun with the intention of hitting the other person. It does not mean that he hit the other.
To say that someone "got shot" is an informal way to say that he "was shot." This indicates that he was actually hit.
-
13Even further: the "got shot" doesn't necessarily mean someone fired a gun with the intention of hitting the other person.– OpifexCommented Jul 15 at 10:11
-
Even further than that, shooting doesn't even imply using a gun, just something that fires a projectile. I'm not sure if a trebuchet or catapult fall into that category, but a bow and arrow, slingshot, and straw and spitball do. You can even shoot someone with a rubberband and your finger. Commented Jul 15 at 22:04
-
1@computercarguy: Your point, while correct, is the same for both options, so it's not relevant. By comparison, Opifex' point is distinctly different between "shot at" (which implies intent) and "shot" (which does not).– FlaterCommented Jul 17 at 0:17
-
@computercarguy To remove your uncertainty, trebuchets and catapults do shoot, as does anything that uses mechanical advantage to launch a missile. The distinction is with weapons that use chemical combustion (guns, rockets, arquebuses..) - those fire. Thus, anyone who says fire an arrow is committing a greater sin than splitting an infinitive. Commented Jul 17 at 7:09
To say He got shot at means that a person with a gun (or people with guns) took aim at him, or pointed their gun(s) at him, and fired at least once. They shot at him. He got shot at.
While being shot at, a person may get shot, i.e. struck by a bullet.
-
2
-
+1 Yes . They are taking pot-shots. Your answer mentions "shot at" doesn't mean "not hit". Commented Jul 14 at 17:29
-
2shot at is silent with respect to whether the person is hit or not. It refers simply to the situation of incoming bullets from guns intentionally pointed at the person. A person who is struck by a builet was not necessarily being shot at, and a person who is being shot at is not necessarily struck and not necessarily not struck. The person may be struck and may be missed.– TimRCommented Jul 14 at 19:00
-
I would argue that being shot at doesn't imply anyone actually aimed at you as the intended target. "I shot at x." That usually implies I aimed at x. However, it doesn't have to. Also, "X was shot at" could be a stray bullet was headed their way in say, a cross fire. "At" is a preposition. Which means the action/verb is only dependent on the position off the subject, not the intention of the actor. Commented Jul 17 at 5:51
-
@DataMinion If a stray bullet is whizzing past you, you are not being shot at. You might think you are, and say that you are, but you aren't.– TimRCommented Jul 17 at 9:41
The first one means someone aimed at Trump and shot.
The second one means he was indeed hit, which was actually what happened. The text was hence revised.
answered Jul 14 at 3:00
-
-
-
2A minor quibble: 'he was shot' typically means a more substantial impact. I would call what happened as being 'grazed' by a bullet (if that's actually what hit the edge of his ear.) Saying he was 'shot' seems like an exaggeration. Commented Jul 15 at 18:53
-
Thanks, @JimmyJames. Agreed. That would be a word-choice question. Commented Jul 15 at 23:15
-
1@DataMinion This is an ELL stack, not the legal stack. It's helpful to someone learning English to understand that the saying someone was shot has implies a serious injury. Yes, technically being grazed is being shot but the fact remains that in normal everyday conversation, the term 'grazed' is much more appropriate than 'shot' for what happened. Also 'Symantec' is a company name. 'Semantics' is the English word. Commented Jul 17 at 15:34
Adding a wrinkle: "Got shot" does not absolutely require intent or aiming. A bystander can "get shot" when the shooter was aiming at someone else.
There's a scene in the movie "True Lies" in which a machine gun was dropped. Many people "got shot" (and killed) because the gun fired on its own as it tumbled down a stairway. So, no person was the shooter, but many people got shot.
-
3I love the "True Lies" reference. That's a great scene. Also, we have to remember that shooting something doesn't necessarily involve a gun. You can shoot someone with a slingshot, bow and arrow, or even a straw and a spitball. As an aside, my friend April Jennifer Choi uses a 30 ft whip to trigger a compound bow to shoot an arrow with a broadhead at herself so she can catch the arrow barehanded. She sometimes does this blindfolded, too. Commented Jul 15 at 22:01
-
I'm going to upvote this simply because I argued this point as a reply in another answer before seeing yours. A preposition doesn't need intent from the actor. Only the position of the subject. I don't care who was aiming at who, if a bullet comes my way, I'm going to say I was shot at. Because at in that context is dependent on my position, not the one who was aimed at. Aimed at has a different subject than I, and the position there is the actor (shooter). Commented Jul 17 at 5:58
-
@DataMinion This answer doesn't even address "shot at" and acknowledges that fact by calling it "a wrinkle". It focuses on "get shot". So talking about the preposition is out in left field here. As I say in the answer that you commented on, "get shot" means "struck by a bullet" -- nothing about intent or aiming.– TimRCommented Jul 17 at 10:04
-
@TimR no, it's not out in left field. Many accepted answers mention to be shot at means to be aimed at. It doesn't. Doesn't it FULLY answer the question, probable not. But it DOES help clarify at least half of that question. Just because some were pointed out being wrong about the aiming part DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET TO GO AROUND SAYING EVERYONE IS IN LEFT FIELD. aiming is IRRELEVANT. Did you say to others their aiming answers were in left field too? No., You DID NOT. Because they support your idea that aiming is implied or needed. Commented Jul 17 at 14:33
-
@DataMinion I said your bringing up the preposition at is out in left field as a comment left here, in an answer that doesn't talk about "shot at" but only about "got shot".– TimRCommented Jul 17 at 15:23
You can shoot someone or you can shoot at someone.
That man shot at John. [doesn't mean he hit him, he aimed at him and fired his weapon]
That man shot John. [John was hit by a bullet fired at him.]
Those kids spent the afternoon shooting rats in the basement with a beebee gun. [They hit them]
Those kids spent the afternoon shooting at rats in the basements. [The rats were the target]
