So, is on more vague in that context?I've said this several times before: say what you mean. If you mean 'covering', say 'covering'. If you don't, don't.
But I thought it was obvious that I was trying to describe what he was wearing.With on, it seems that you are trying to describe what he's wearing.
But I thought it was obvious that I was trying to describe what he was wearing.![]()
So, does covering convey some different meaning here?
So, if I got it right, in this context...That's a typical problem with your questions. You tend to assume we know what you mean, and then you ask us what you mean.
Yes, it conveys the idea of covering.
Yes.-On means he was wearing the vest.
No. If you use 'covering', that word becomes important. We don't normally use 'cover' when we simply mean 'wear'. Perhaps this person has scars that he is sensitive about, and is hiding them by wearing a vest. I don't know; you used the verb.-Covering means his vest was on his body, but he was not wearing it (e.g. it was tied around his waist or he was carrying it over his shoulder etc.)
Have I got it right?
If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know: