semantic nuance Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:45 AM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:45 AM Hi, I have an English question and need your help. I'd like to know this usage--A is irresistible to B. Does it mean 1. A cannot resist B or 2. B cannot resist A? I've seen different examples on the internet to either mean 1 and 2. That's why I'm so confused. Could you please tell me the usage of 'irresistible to'. examples: 109 ways to make your business irresistible to media; how to make you irresistible to women; what dishes are irresistible to you? etc. Other examples are below: 1. There are many people who are irresistible to charm of the luxury watches and wish to possess one. (from here) 2. Gennie wants to prove to that Grant is irresistible to her charms. (from here) 3. There were points in my life where I felt oddly irresistible to women. I’m not in that state now and that makes me sad. (from here) Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle1990 Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:50 AM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:50 AM B cannot resist A. Examples 1 and 2 are incorrect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanglu Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:53 AM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:53 AM Examples 1 and 2 should be 'can not resist'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymoose Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:56 AM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:56 AM I had never thought about this before, but from your examples, it seems that "irresistable to" has both of the uses you listed. But note that, in the case of "B cannot resist A", B is either a person, or something that can react. (For example, "media" is obviously not a person, but still has the ability to react to the stimulus.) On the other hand, in the case of "A cannot resist B", B is some kind of attraction or attractive property, such as "charm" or "attractive watches". I feel that the latter is used less than the former. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semantic nuance Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:57 AM Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 03:57 AM so, 3 means that Jack was attracted by women or he was attractive to women? 1 and 2 are definitely incorrect. Right? I'd like to know if they're totally wrong and cannot be written as that. I feel that the latter is probably used less than the former. @annonymoose: do you mean B cannot resist A is less used than A cannot resist B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semantic nuance Posted May 5, 2011 at 04:42 AM Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 04:42 AM Just googled for the example from Jack Nicholson's, and I found that it meant women don't find Jack Nicholson irresistible anymore. Still, I'd like to know if ' A is irresistible to B meaning A cannot resist B' is absolutely wrong and cannot be written as such. Could anyone confirm this? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymoose Posted May 5, 2011 at 05:02 AM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 05:02 AM @annonymoose: do you mean B cannot resist A is less used than A cannot resist B? No, the other way round. In fact, I'm not sure if the "A cannot resist B" version is correct. It sounds OK to me, but then it might just be one of those things that if you hear enough, you eventually get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semantic nuance Posted May 5, 2011 at 05:08 AM Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 05:08 AM Thank you, aristotle1990, fanglu, and anonymoose, for your help. Much appreciated!! @anonymoose: sorry for the typo of your ID in my previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted May 5, 2011 at 01:33 PM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 01:33 PM Still, I'd like to know if ' A is irresistible to B meaning A cannot resist B' is absolutely wrong and cannot be written as such. Could anyone confirm this? I can confirm it. "Mary is irresistable to John" means John cannot resist Mary, not the other way around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted May 5, 2011 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 04:05 PM Nice thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creamyhorror Posted May 5, 2011 at 05:15 PM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 05:15 PM 1. There are many people who are irresistible to charm of the luxury watches and wish to possess one. (from here)2. Gennie wants to prove to that Grant is irresistible to her charms. (from here) Completely wrong. Still, I'd like to know if ' A is irresistible to B meaning A cannot resist B' is absolutely wrong and cannot be written as such. Could anyone confirm this? Yup, confirmation from me as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daofeishi Posted May 5, 2011 at 06:53 PM Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 06:53 PM Just to chime in with the rest, "A is irresistible to B" means the same as "B cannot resist A" and does not under any circumstance mean "A cannot resist B". Examples 1&2 are definitely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semantic nuance Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:54 AM Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:54 AM Thank you all for your input. Now, I get the picture of it. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.