Usage of infinitive or gerund
For him to sail back is unthinkable
For him sailing back is unthinkable.
Why is the second sentence considered as wrong?
Can the first sentence be paraphrased as (1)
It is unthinkable that he could sail back. OR as (2) It is unthinkable for him to sail back.
infinitive-vs-gerund infinitive-constructions infinitive-clauses
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
|
show 3 more comments
For him to sail back is unthinkable
For him sailing back is unthinkable.
Why is the second sentence considered as wrong?
Can the first sentence be paraphrased as (1)
It is unthinkable that he could sail back. OR as (2) It is unthinkable for him to sail back.
infinitive-vs-gerund infinitive-constructions infinitive-clauses
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
3
You could say "For him, sailing back is unthinkable," with a comma.
– sumelic
2 days ago
Could you explain it?
– user329742
2 days ago
I think that "for him" in that context serves to modify the entire statement, rather than just "sailing back". You could also put "for him" at the end: "Sailing back is unthinkable for him," similar to your second paraphrase. I don't know how relevant this is. I can't give a full explanation, which is why I just left that as a comment (I wasn't sure whether you knew it already).
– sumelic
2 days ago
Then the first paraphrase must be wrong?
– user329742
2 days ago
"For him to sail back is unthinkable" does not contain a real subject, so it's debatable whether it's grammatical at all, if "to sail" is chiefly a verb. For the second sentence, I agree, a comma is missing, and "sailing back" appears somewhat like a noun. I don't find it objectionable. But I'm not a native speaker nor a grammarian. I can imagine that "him" functions as subject for "is" on the one hand, and as object in an inverted OV structure for "to sail back", with a parasitic gap (I just learned a new word today :D) from "to sail (him) back". cp "to be or not to be, that is the question".
– vectory
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
For him to sail back is unthinkable
For him sailing back is unthinkable.
Why is the second sentence considered as wrong?
Can the first sentence be paraphrased as (1)
It is unthinkable that he could sail back. OR as (2) It is unthinkable for him to sail back.
infinitive-vs-gerund infinitive-constructions infinitive-clauses
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
For him to sail back is unthinkable
For him sailing back is unthinkable.
Why is the second sentence considered as wrong?
Can the first sentence be paraphrased as (1)
It is unthinkable that he could sail back. OR as (2) It is unthinkable for him to sail back.
infinitive-vs-gerund infinitive-constructions infinitive-clauses
infinitive-vs-gerund infinitive-constructions infinitive-clauses
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
edited 2 days ago
sumelic
46.6k8110214
46.6k8110214
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
asked 2 days ago
user329742user329742
111
111
3
You could say "For him, sailing back is unthinkable," with a comma.
– sumelic
2 days ago
Could you explain it?
– user329742
2 days ago
I think that "for him" in that context serves to modify the entire statement, rather than just "sailing back". You could also put "for him" at the end: "Sailing back is unthinkable for him," similar to your second paraphrase. I don't know how relevant this is. I can't give a full explanation, which is why I just left that as a comment (I wasn't sure whether you knew it already).
– sumelic
2 days ago
Then the first paraphrase must be wrong?
– user329742
2 days ago
"For him to sail back is unthinkable" does not contain a real subject, so it's debatable whether it's grammatical at all, if "to sail" is chiefly a verb. For the second sentence, I agree, a comma is missing, and "sailing back" appears somewhat like a noun. I don't find it objectionable. But I'm not a native speaker nor a grammarian. I can imagine that "him" functions as subject for "is" on the one hand, and as object in an inverted OV structure for "to sail back", with a parasitic gap (I just learned a new word today :D) from "to sail (him) back". cp "to be or not to be, that is the question".
– vectory
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
You could say "For him, sailing back is unthinkable," with a comma.
– sumelic
2 days ago
Could you explain it?
– user329742
2 days ago
I think that "for him" in that context serves to modify the entire statement, rather than just "sailing back". You could also put "for him" at the end: "Sailing back is unthinkable for him," similar to your second paraphrase. I don't know how relevant this is. I can't give a full explanation, which is why I just left that as a comment (I wasn't sure whether you knew it already).
– sumelic
2 days ago
Then the first paraphrase must be wrong?
– user329742
2 days ago
"For him to sail back is unthinkable" does not contain a real subject, so it's debatable whether it's grammatical at all, if "to sail" is chiefly a verb. For the second sentence, I agree, a comma is missing, and "sailing back" appears somewhat like a noun. I don't find it objectionable. But I'm not a native speaker nor a grammarian. I can imagine that "him" functions as subject for "is" on the one hand, and as object in an inverted OV structure for "to sail back", with a parasitic gap (I just learned a new word today :D) from "to sail (him) back". cp "to be or not to be, that is the question".
– vectory
2 days ago
3
3
You could say "For him, sailing back is unthinkable," with a comma.
– sumelic
2 days ago
You could say "For him, sailing back is unthinkable," with a comma.
– sumelic
2 days ago
Could you explain it?
– user329742
2 days ago
Could you explain it?
– user329742
2 days ago
I think that "for him" in that context serves to modify the entire statement, rather than just "sailing back". You could also put "for him" at the end: "Sailing back is unthinkable for him," similar to your second paraphrase. I don't know how relevant this is. I can't give a full explanation, which is why I just left that as a comment (I wasn't sure whether you knew it already).
– sumelic
2 days ago
I think that "for him" in that context serves to modify the entire statement, rather than just "sailing back". You could also put "for him" at the end: "Sailing back is unthinkable for him," similar to your second paraphrase. I don't know how relevant this is. I can't give a full explanation, which is why I just left that as a comment (I wasn't sure whether you knew it already).
– sumelic
2 days ago
Then the first paraphrase must be wrong?
– user329742
2 days ago
Then the first paraphrase must be wrong?
– user329742
2 days ago
"For him to sail back is unthinkable" does not contain a real subject, so it's debatable whether it's grammatical at all, if "to sail" is chiefly a verb. For the second sentence, I agree, a comma is missing, and "sailing back" appears somewhat like a noun. I don't find it objectionable. But I'm not a native speaker nor a grammarian. I can imagine that "him" functions as subject for "is" on the one hand, and as object in an inverted OV structure for "to sail back", with a parasitic gap (I just learned a new word today :D) from "to sail (him) back". cp "to be or not to be, that is the question".
– vectory
2 days ago
"For him to sail back is unthinkable" does not contain a real subject, so it's debatable whether it's grammatical at all, if "to sail" is chiefly a verb. For the second sentence, I agree, a comma is missing, and "sailing back" appears somewhat like a noun. I don't find it objectionable. But I'm not a native speaker nor a grammarian. I can imagine that "him" functions as subject for "is" on the one hand, and as object in an inverted OV structure for "to sail back", with a parasitic gap (I just learned a new word today :D) from "to sail (him) back". cp "to be or not to be, that is the question".
– vectory
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
"For him to sail back" is a noun phrase, which can stand as the subject of "unthinkable".
"Sailing back" is also a noun phrase, which can also stand as the subject of "unthinkable"; but there is nowhere to attach "for him" to it.
You could attach the subject in a different way: "his sailing back", or (less literary) "him sailing back", could stand as the subject.
As sumelic said in a comment, if "for him" is in a separate breath group (before a comma), it is not part of the syntactic structure, and works as an external modifier.
You could just about manage with "for him" afterwards: "Sailing back for him is unthinkable"; but I think most people would there treat it as a parenthetical, between commas: "Sailing back, for him, is unthinkable".
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
2
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
1
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
add a comment |
[For him to sail back] is unthinkable.
[For him sailing back] is unthinkable.
Only 1. is grammatical.
When a to-infinitival contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator for which appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject. Thus, the subject of for him to sail back, is him.
But the subordinator for does not occur with gerund-participial clauses, and hence 2. is ungrammatical.
Your paraphrases are fine. The second is actually the extraposed version of your example 1.
Infinitivals containing a subject, like 1. are quite common:
[For you to accept blame] would be a serious mistake.
[For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.
All I want is [for us to be reunited].
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481265%2fusage-of-infinitive-or-gerund%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"For him to sail back" is a noun phrase, which can stand as the subject of "unthinkable".
"Sailing back" is also a noun phrase, which can also stand as the subject of "unthinkable"; but there is nowhere to attach "for him" to it.
You could attach the subject in a different way: "his sailing back", or (less literary) "him sailing back", could stand as the subject.
As sumelic said in a comment, if "for him" is in a separate breath group (before a comma), it is not part of the syntactic structure, and works as an external modifier.
You could just about manage with "for him" afterwards: "Sailing back for him is unthinkable"; but I think most people would there treat it as a parenthetical, between commas: "Sailing back, for him, is unthinkable".
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
2
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
1
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
add a comment |
"For him to sail back" is a noun phrase, which can stand as the subject of "unthinkable".
"Sailing back" is also a noun phrase, which can also stand as the subject of "unthinkable"; but there is nowhere to attach "for him" to it.
You could attach the subject in a different way: "his sailing back", or (less literary) "him sailing back", could stand as the subject.
As sumelic said in a comment, if "for him" is in a separate breath group (before a comma), it is not part of the syntactic structure, and works as an external modifier.
You could just about manage with "for him" afterwards: "Sailing back for him is unthinkable"; but I think most people would there treat it as a parenthetical, between commas: "Sailing back, for him, is unthinkable".
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
2
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
1
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
add a comment |
"For him to sail back" is a noun phrase, which can stand as the subject of "unthinkable".
"Sailing back" is also a noun phrase, which can also stand as the subject of "unthinkable"; but there is nowhere to attach "for him" to it.
You could attach the subject in a different way: "his sailing back", or (less literary) "him sailing back", could stand as the subject.
As sumelic said in a comment, if "for him" is in a separate breath group (before a comma), it is not part of the syntactic structure, and works as an external modifier.
You could just about manage with "for him" afterwards: "Sailing back for him is unthinkable"; but I think most people would there treat it as a parenthetical, between commas: "Sailing back, for him, is unthinkable".
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
"For him to sail back" is a noun phrase, which can stand as the subject of "unthinkable".
"Sailing back" is also a noun phrase, which can also stand as the subject of "unthinkable"; but there is nowhere to attach "for him" to it.
You could attach the subject in a different way: "his sailing back", or (less literary) "him sailing back", could stand as the subject.
As sumelic said in a comment, if "for him" is in a separate breath group (before a comma), it is not part of the syntactic structure, and works as an external modifier.
You could just about manage with "for him" afterwards: "Sailing back for him is unthinkable"; but I think most people would there treat it as a parenthetical, between commas: "Sailing back, for him, is unthinkable".
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
answered 2 days ago
Colin FineColin Fine
64k172161
64k172161
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
2
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
1
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
add a comment |
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
2
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
1
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
"a separate breath group" this commas-are-pauses thing really just went too far. IMHO the comma is needed because normally "for him" attaches to "unthinkable", at the end. The comma shows a syntactic break. This too works with "too", too. Or so I think. How do you mean "there is nowhere to attach "for him""?
– vectory
2 days ago
2
2
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Just to note that “Sailing back for him...” carries the slight risk of being interpreted as “sailing back to get him”.
– pbasdf
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Or Sailing back is unthinkable for him.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
@pbasdf: yes, that occurred to me, but I thought it was an extra complication that I didn't need to bring in.
– Colin Fine
2 days ago
1
1
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
Eh? "For him to sail back" is an infinitival clause introduced by the subordinator "for". How can it possibly be an NP? "Sailing back" is a gerund-participial clause, but it is ungrammatical here with "for" which can introduce infinitivals but not gerund-participials.
– BillJ
2 days ago
add a comment |
[For him to sail back] is unthinkable.
[For him sailing back] is unthinkable.
Only 1. is grammatical.
When a to-infinitival contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator for which appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject. Thus, the subject of for him to sail back, is him.
But the subordinator for does not occur with gerund-participial clauses, and hence 2. is ungrammatical.
Your paraphrases are fine. The second is actually the extraposed version of your example 1.
Infinitivals containing a subject, like 1. are quite common:
[For you to accept blame] would be a serious mistake.
[For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.
All I want is [for us to be reunited].
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
add a comment |
[For him to sail back] is unthinkable.
[For him sailing back] is unthinkable.
Only 1. is grammatical.
When a to-infinitival contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator for which appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject. Thus, the subject of for him to sail back, is him.
But the subordinator for does not occur with gerund-participial clauses, and hence 2. is ungrammatical.
Your paraphrases are fine. The second is actually the extraposed version of your example 1.
Infinitivals containing a subject, like 1. are quite common:
[For you to accept blame] would be a serious mistake.
[For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.
All I want is [for us to be reunited].
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
add a comment |
[For him to sail back] is unthinkable.
[For him sailing back] is unthinkable.
Only 1. is grammatical.
When a to-infinitival contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator for which appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject. Thus, the subject of for him to sail back, is him.
But the subordinator for does not occur with gerund-participial clauses, and hence 2. is ungrammatical.
Your paraphrases are fine. The second is actually the extraposed version of your example 1.
Infinitivals containing a subject, like 1. are quite common:
[For you to accept blame] would be a serious mistake.
[For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.
All I want is [for us to be reunited].
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
[For him to sail back] is unthinkable.
[For him sailing back] is unthinkable.
Only 1. is grammatical.
When a to-infinitival contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator for which appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject. Thus, the subject of for him to sail back, is him.
But the subordinator for does not occur with gerund-participial clauses, and hence 2. is ungrammatical.
Your paraphrases are fine. The second is actually the extraposed version of your example 1.
Infinitivals containing a subject, like 1. are quite common:
[For you to accept blame] would be a serious mistake.
[For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.
All I want is [for us to be reunited].
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
answered 2 days ago
BillJBillJ
4,0861913
4,0861913
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
add a comment |
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
You stop short of explaining why and how the first variant is deemed correct. It would be unusual in the UK, according to this answer. and incorrect in formal registers. I wonder where this idiomatic construction ultimately derives from, for it would be a shame to omit, for to omit would be a shame. All I want is for you to be happy. I wish for an explanation.
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
All I want for is you to be happy <3
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
@vectory What are you talking about? I didn't stop short at anything. I explained in my answer why the first alternant is correct. Try reading it again. And who says it's idiomatic? A non-grammarian. non-native speaker like yourself?
– BillJ
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481265%2fusage-of-infinitive-or-gerund%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
You could say "For him, sailing back is unthinkable," with a comma.
– sumelic
2 days ago
Could you explain it?
– user329742
2 days ago
I think that "for him" in that context serves to modify the entire statement, rather than just "sailing back". You could also put "for him" at the end: "Sailing back is unthinkable for him," similar to your second paraphrase. I don't know how relevant this is. I can't give a full explanation, which is why I just left that as a comment (I wasn't sure whether you knew it already).
– sumelic
2 days ago
Then the first paraphrase must be wrong?
– user329742
2 days ago
"For him to sail back is unthinkable" does not contain a real subject, so it's debatable whether it's grammatical at all, if "to sail" is chiefly a verb. For the second sentence, I agree, a comma is missing, and "sailing back" appears somewhat like a noun. I don't find it objectionable. But I'm not a native speaker nor a grammarian. I can imagine that "him" functions as subject for "is" on the one hand, and as object in an inverted OV structure for "to sail back", with a parasitic gap (I just learned a new word today :D) from "to sail (him) back". cp "to be or not to be, that is the question".
– vectory
2 days ago