The English language often presents challenges when deciding between two similar phrases. Two such phrases are 'immune to' and 'immune from.' Both expressions are commonly used, yet they convey slightly different meanings. This article aims to clarify their distinctions and provide guidance on correct usage.
- "Immune to"
-
"Immune to" is typically used when referring to the body's natural resistance to diseases, infections, or similar threats. When someone or something is described as 'immune to' a particular threat, it indicates a level of biological or natural resistance against it.
Examples:
The vaccine made her immune to the flu virus, reducing her chances of falling ill.
He has been exposed to the allergens for so long that he seems immune to cat dander.
In the above examples, the usage of "immune to" is correct because it describes the body's resistance to a particular agent.
- "Immune from"
-
Conversely, "immune from" is typically used in a legal or metaphorical context, where immunity refers to exemption or protection. When someone is 'immune from' certain obligations, it indicates that they are exempt from these responsibilities or consequences.
Examples:
As a diplomat, she was immune from prosecution under local laws.
His elite status made him immune from the usual airport security checks.
In these instances, "immune from" is situationally appropriate as it refers to an exemption from legal or procedural obligations.
These categories of use are distinct, with "immune to" generally addressing natural or inherent resistance and "immune from" concerning exemption or protection from regulations or obligations. By understanding and utilizing these distinctions, one can ensure linguistic precision in both written and spoken communication.
Did I miss anything? Respond below
