reduce = cut back on and cut down on ?

Camlearner

Senior Member
Khmer
Hi,

I notice that.. to mean REDUCE, sometimes people write in newspaper.. cut back sometimes cut down somtimes plus preposition on like cut back on and cut down on.. are they correct use?

Thanks.
 
  • Camlearner

    Senior Member
    Khmer
    Good morning owlman5. Thank you. How about minus on ? Do you hear and read both too "cut back /cut down " costs, etc. Both are idiomatic too??

    I mean all mean same meaning?

    to reduce
    to cut back
    to cut back on
    to cut down
    to cut down on
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    Yes, all these mean the same thing. "To reduce", "to cut back", and "to cut down" can all be used intransitively. The versions ending in prepositions should be used with an object:

    We reduced costs. We reduced. (possible, though unusual by itself)
    We cut back costs. We cut back.
    We cut back on costs.
    We cut down our expenses. We cut down. (possible, though unusual by itself)
    We cut down on our expenses.
     

    Kross

    Senior Member
    Korean
    Hello, all

    I’d like to ask a related question here. When we are talking about costs, expenses and something related to money, cut down on and cut back on can be interchangeable? For example, we should cut down/back on unnecessary expenses and save for a rainy days.

    Any help is much appreciated. Thank you. :)
     

    sunyaer

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Yes, all these mean the same thing. "To reduce", "to cut back", and "to cut down" can all be used intransitively. The versions ending in prepositions should be used with an object:

    We reduced costs. We reduced. (possible, though unusual by itself)
    We cut back costs. We cut back.
    We cut back on costs.
    We cut down our expenses. We cut down.
    (possible, though unusual by itself)
    We cut down on our expenses.
    Does "cut down on costs" make any sense?
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top