Translation:Is money important to you?
It's about using the correct preposition with the specific words. You will always use "to" when talking about something being important to someone. You can compare it to "precious", so you can say "it is precious to me" but saying "it is precious FOR me" sounds odd.
"Important for you" doesn't sound that odd to me. Food is important for me. Good food is important to me.
I think the base idea that being important for someone or something means that it is a condition. Air is important for people, electricity is important for the industry. Using "to" instead specifies the emotional level. Food is important for humans because they don't want to hunger, but it is important to me because I enjoy it.
I'd agree with this. Money itself isn't that important to me, but its highly important for me, as its necessary to do all the other stuff that is important to me. I feel that "for" conveys more of a use than the item itself. "using money" is important to(for) me, but "money" isn't that important. "Eating food" is important to(for) you, but delicious "food" is important to you. Slight difference, but thats only if you're nitpicking.
Note that I still think stevrn4 is right that it should be "to you" here. "Is money important for you?" sounds like something asked by an alien from a civilization that does not use money.
Semantically, there is no difference. The only point to note here is that certain adjectives pair with "to" and others with "for". You just need to memorize them.
I don't think that's totally true; it's not just about the adjective. In English we usually hear "important to" because it's frequently in the context of "important to verb". "It's important to brush your teeth." "Remember, it's important not to close your eyes." (I don't think "important" somehow becomes an adverb in these sentences, right? It's still an adjective?) But gasoline is important for an engine. It's important to lock the door, but it's important for you to lock the door. It's not important for lock the door because "for lock the door" isn't something we say, unless we're talking about someone named Lock-the-Door. But a key is important for locking the door.
If we said "it's important to you to lock the door" it has the fairly strong implication that it's specifically important to you, and maybe nobody else thinks it's a big deal to lock this particular door, or perhaps just that you personally enjoy the process of locking the door.
Context and intended meaning are more important to note than just that certain adjectives pair with certain prepositions. "He is good for her" is different from "he is good to her." "These clothes are good for swimming," not "these clothes are good to swimming" because "to swimming" isn't something we say, unless we're going to a town called Swimming. But you could say "these clothes are good to swim in."
"These clothes are wet from swimming." You could say "these clothes are good from swimming," and the meaning would be that swimming has made the clothes good, but you're unlikely to mean that, so a native speaker would probably assume you said it wrong. And you probably did, unless you were swimming in the Fountain of Clothes-Improvement.
All of this just to say I don't think it's wise to encourage anyone learning English as a second language to "just memorize" which prepositions go where. I think it's far easier if you learn why you're saying them. And I think the same goes for learning Japanese from English.
There's definitely a subtle difference between "important to someone" and "important for someone" but I suspect ～ にとって can validly be translated either way, especially in the case of "money".
It is shows the evaluation criteria of 'somebody or something'.
This question does not mean 'Is money "generally" important?'. It is 'Is money important in "your" mind ?'. (somebody or something instead of 'your') (mind or way of thinking or case, etc)
There are the cheap ring and expensive ring. Typically, the expensive ring more valuable than the cheap one. But the value is different from each person. 'This cheap ring is more valuable than other expensive rings 'to me’ (わたしにとって), because this is the gift from my child.'
If I understand you correctly, あなたにお金はたいせつですか which is the example sentence without とって means "Is money important for you in general?"
I'm not sure but money, usually have the same general value it only makes sense to ask the personal value one gives to it
The comment saying that there are shortage letters, the letters were the shortage. (＞＜;)
grammar lesson on にとって construction here:
にとって (に取って) is an expression, usually written in kana, which means: to; for; concerning; as far as ... is concerned; regarding. So, I think this could be literally translated as something like "Regarding you, is money important?".
Is this sentence talking about, like, emotional values, or physical needs? Like, if I were to say in English, "Are pineapples important for you?" it implies I'm asking if pineapples are important for your physical wellbeing. If I asked, "Are pineapples important to you?" I'm more interested in how you value pineapples emotionally. Saying, "Is money important for you?" from a native speaker without context, it could sound like you're indirectly asking if they're poor or not...
I agree. I'm wondering if this translates to "do you care a lot about money?" Or "will you not be able to afford" something being talked about
This was my thought also. It is important for you if there is a survival context but it is important to you from a desire/need context but not necessarily a survival context
I feel like this wasn't taught very well. the sentence structure is suddenly different out of nowhere
Omg chucking in so many new words verbs in this chapter I can't keep track
If the particle に let explicit that the money is important to you then why the とって? Someone help me?