Drink or drinking?

[vslapak]

Which one of these sentences is correct?

I like to drink tea with my cup because it was a gift from my mother.

I like drinking tea with my cup because it was a gift from my mother.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by vslapak

Which one of these sentences is correct?
I like to drink tea with my cup because it was a gift from my mother.
I like drinking tea with my cup because it was a gift from my mother.

Both are correct, Vslapak. The linguist, Dwight Bolinger, speculated that the 'to' form is more speculative, used when we are not involved in the actual event and the 'ing' form is more when we are in the midst of the event.

I think that there is some merit in this though I've not seen any studies that back it up.

[curmudgeon]

I would change 'with my cup' to 'from my cup' or 'from this cup'

[vslapak]

Thank you very much for your respnses, they were very helpful

[Humble]

Hi,
Still I think the Infinitive is preferable in expanded sentences.

[Harry Smith]

Originally Posted by vslapak

Which one of these sentences is correct?

I like to drink tea with my cup because it was a gift from my mother.

I like drinking tea with my cup because it was a gift from my mother.

I'd prefer the second because saying "I like drinking tea with my cup...." we mean "I enjoy drinking tea...".

[Casiopea]

Riverkid, could a to-infinitive be interpreted that way (i.e., speculative) because the present participle, in its capacity to express an on-going event, is part actualized and part unactualized, whereas the infinitive is all unactualized. Now, "unactualized" doesn't mean the event never happened or never took place. It means not connected to a particular time or place. What the following author calls universe time.



Mood: universe time

The infinitive and the participles [are] relative insofar as time is concerned because they express events in time with no reference to the present. /.../ As a consequence, non-finite verbs present their event merely as an idea, as something conceivable whose relations to a particular time and a particular place are not actualized, ...

To give them the potential for referring to a determined place in time, the quasi-nominal forms are provided with a distinct way of representing universe time : it must, of course, be conceived of as capable of containing any event but without any instant dividing it into different spheres or even any point where a subject can be situated. Since they involve a distinct way of representing universe time, the quasi-nominal forms constitute a separate mood.

Here's an example from event mechanics.

Let’s assume that an election has been held in a certain country. This election occurs at a specific time and place. As such the event is inseparable from a particular “here and now.” In fact we refer to the election as having taken “place.” In this case we would say that an actual event has taken place. As a first approximation, when press agencies announce or comment on this election, they do not broadcast the event itself but a message about the event. Here we can state that while the event itself is actual, the production and distribution of messages about it constitute a virtualization of the event, one supplied with all the attributes previously associated with virtualization: The event is detached from a specific time and place, ...

Read more here

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Riverkid, could a to-infinitive be interpreted that way (i.e., speculative) because the present participle, in its capacity to express an on-going event, is part actualized and part unactualized, whereas the infinitive is all unactualized.

I must say one thing right off the bat, Casi. Your explanation was way easier to grasp than the explanation in the link you gave. Kudos to you. When my mind is more rested, I'll give the link a go.

I haven't read Bollinger's complete explanation on this. It was only one short quote or paraphrase. However, I think you're on the right track. Let's say we're, say, snorkelling or surfing and you remark to me, which do you figure you'd choose;

"I like to surf/snorkel"

OR

"I like surfing/snorkelling".

Now, "unactualized" doesn't mean the event never happened or never took place. It means not connected to a particular time or place. What the following author calls universe time.

I agree. It could well be a routine event, say a skier who often skis. Here, [again, I'm not contradicting Bollinger for I don't know all he said], it seems to me that a "I love to ski" slightly distances it, makes it seem not quite as "loveable" as a "I love skiing".

I'm not suggesting and I don't think Bollinger was either, that we are compelled to choose the 'ing' when we're actually, at the moment, involved in something.

That's why I mentioned the study. It would be interesting to see whether ENLs chose the infinitive or the 'ing' as described by Bollinger.

Good stuff! More later.

Ciao.


Mood: universe time

The infinitive and the participles [are] relative insofar as time is concerned because they express events in time with no reference to the present. /.../ As a consequence, non-finite verbs present their event merely as an idea, as something conceivable whose relations to a particular time and a particular place are not actualized, ...

To give them the potential for referring to a determined place in time, the quasi-nominal forms are provided with a distinct way of representing universe time : it must, of course, be conceived of as capable of containing any event but without any instant dividing it into different spheres or even any point where a subject can be situated. Since they involve a distinct way of representing universe time, the quasi-nominal forms constitute a separate mood.

Here's an example from event mechanics.

Let’s assume that an election has been held in a certain country. This election occurs at a specific time and place. As such the event is inseparable from a particular “here and now.” In fact we refer to the election as having taken “place.” In this case we would say that an actual event has taken place. As a first approximation, when press agencies announce or comment on this election, they do not broadcast the event itself but a message about the event. Here we can state that while the event itself is actual, the production and distribution of messages about it constitute a virtualization of the event, one supplied with all the attributes previously associated with virtualization: The event is detached from a specific time and place, ...

Read more here

##