# ל /  על



## Chazz

hi,

i've seen both versions wondering if there's any difference?


ירו רקטות לתל אביב
ירו רקטות על תל אביב


----------



## arielipi

Fired rockets to/at tel aviv
Fired rockets on tel aviv.


----------



## لنـا

Maybe it differs in English while translating, but i don't see any difference in Hebrew, since it appears in three versions in ynet(ידיעות אחרונות)

ynet אסיר ירה על סוהרים, כוחות פרצו והרגו אותו - 

ynet לראשונה מאז "עמוד ענן": חמאס ירה בעצמו לישראל - חדשות

ynet כוח צה"ל ירה אל פלסטינים שניסו לחבל בגדר בצפון רצועת עזה


----------



## tFighterPilot

They are not interchangeable. The first one is "shot at", the second one is "shot to" and the third one means "shot at the direction of". You can also say "xירה ב" which simply means "shot x"


----------



## لنـا

Thank you!... Too close to notice these differences while reading!


----------



## rosemarino

tFighterPilot said:


> They are not interchangeable. The first one is "shot at", the second one is "shot to" and the third one means "shot at the direction of". You can also say "xירה ב" which simply means "shot x"



But you can't say "shot to" in English. 

Can you give a little more context for what ירה ל means?

We also have the expression "shot on,"  which is similar to "shot at" but, it seems to me,  is more likely to mean that  the shooting hit the target.

Btw, for the third one, we would say "shot _in_ the direction of."


----------



## Drink

rosemarino said:


> But you can't say "shot to" in English.



I beg to differ. You most certainly can say "They shot rockets to Tel Aviv", meaning that the rockets were able to reach Tel Aviv.


----------



## rosemarino

Well, you _could _but to me it sounds awkward.

In the example that is being translated, חמאס ירה בעצמו לישראל, I wouldn't say, "Hamas itself shot to Israel."  Maybe shot toward? or shot into?



I also noticed this usage in "הארץ", using לעבר:




[*=right]טנק מכוח אחר ירה לעברו
[*=right]נתניהו הוסיף כי חמאס מחביא תחמושת בבתי ספר ויורה אותם לעבר בתי ספר בישראל.


----------



## Drink

rosemarino said:


> In the example that is being translated, חמאס ירה בעצמו לישראל, I wouldn't say, "Hamas itself shot to Israel."  Maybe shot toward? or shot into?



Well yeah, you would have to add in a direct object for it to make sense.


----------



## origumi

I agree with those who detail the difference between -ל-, אל, על, ,ב in this context but also agree that the differences are small and therefore wouldn't be surprised to find inconsistencies in newspapers for example.


----------



## Chazz

So if i get it right the differences are:



ירו רקטות לתל אביב - the rocket reached tel aviv
ירו רקטות על תל אביב - the rocket didn't 'reach' / hit tel aviv because it was intercepted?


----------



## bazq

Chazz said:


> So if i get it right the differences are:
> 
> 
> 
> ירו רקטות לתל אביב - the rocket reached tel aviv
> ירו רקטות על תל אביב - the rocket didn't 'reach' / hit tel aviv because it was intercepted?



Actually, I would say the first sentence implies that the rockets were fired "in the direction of Tel Aviv" , and does not necessarily mean they reached it (they could have been intercepted before reaching there).

The second sentence implies that the rockets *reached *Tel Aviv (maybe they were intercepted, maybe they weren't).

I also think there's a difference between the various prepositions when referring to animate objects (ירה על מישהו , ירה במישהו, ירה אל עבר מישהו). Most noticeably you can't use ל/אל when talking about animate objects.


----------



## origumi

bazq said:


> I also think there's a difference between the various prepositions when referring to animate objects (ירה על מישהו , ירה במישהו, ירה אל עבר מישהו). Most noticeably you can't use ל/אל when talking about animate objects.


Such rules usually do not hold water, as a quick search may show: https://www.google.com/search?q="ירה+אליו"


----------



## utopia

bazq said:


> Actually, I would say the first sentence implies that the rockets were fired "in the direction of Tel Aviv" , and does not necessarily mean they reached it (they could have been intercepted before reaching there).
> 
> The second sentence implies that the rockets *reached *Tel Aviv (maybe they were intercepted, maybe they weren't).
> 
> I also think there's a difference between the various prepositions when referring to animate objects (ירה על מישהו , ירה במישהו, ירה אל עבר מישהו). Most noticeably you can't use ל/אל when talking about animate objects.




In the case of על I get the feeling that there's a sufferer here. Tel-Aviv absorbed the missiles (intercepted or not - never mind).


----------

