Gerund after "to"

[Niall]

I am not too sure about first to meaning before because I can't think of any cases in which it does.
Also, if it did mean before the meaning of the sentence would change. The sentence at the moment is true, if we use the word before, the statement is then untrue, because First blood does not refer to the act of drawing blood before instigating the aggression.

[Bushwhacker]

Originally Posted by Niall

The gerund (or the present participle) is used after a preposition. This is usually as part of a prepositional verb (that is verb + preposition).
For example we use the gerund after believe in, rely on or think of.

The case you mentioned, look forward to, is a phrasal prepositional verb. They are made up of verb + adverb + preposition and therefore, they end in a preposition, and it is necessary to use the gerund.

We cannot say I look forward to hear from you, we must instead use the gerund, so that the sentence says I look forward to hearing from you.

Don't hesitate to ask for further explaination.

Thank you for all the explanations, but even accepting because established, that after "look forward to" comes a gerund, I can't understand the reason we sometimes use "to + verb in gerund", when, usually, after "to" we put the verb in infinitive, isn't it?

Thank You for encouraging me to keep doing questions on that.

[Teia]

Originally Posted by Niall

I am not too sure about first to meaning before because I can't think of any cases in which it does.
Also, if it did mean before the meaning of the sentence would change. The sentence at the moment is true, if we use the word before, the statement is then untrue, because First blood does not refer to the act of drawing blood before instigating the aggression.

You are right. That is why I said that changing the sentence , sounds weird. I tried to understand the necessity of using gerund here but, still I can`t. I wonder if the sentence does really make sense in its original form . How do you understand it? I mean, can you rephrase it so that I can understand its message? Thank you.

[Niall]

Simply: we use the gerund form after a prepositional verb.
Gerund must be used after all prepositional verbs, such as:
apologise for
talk about
think of
accuse of

[Niall]

And in answer to Teia: No, I don't think it does make sense.

[Bushwhacker]

Originally Posted by Niall

Simply: we use the gerund form after a prepositional verb.
Gerund must be used after all prepositional verbs, such as:
apologise for
talk about
think of
accuse of

Yes, of course, but sometimes we meet "to + verb in gerund" not after a prepositional verb as it seems the case. I start beginning to think that probably it is a mistake of the original, and that the right sentence is "First blood" refers to the act of drawing blood first, to instigate the aggression." Taking into account Teia's plea, I'd say that sentence is saying: "The expression of "first blood" is referring to the act of being the first in attacking in order to provoke the aggression of the contrary, the enemy."

Anyway, still not knowing why sometimes I read to + gerund in cases there is not a prepositional verb.

[Niall]

I think I have come to the conclusion that the original is slightly incorrect in that case.

As for cases where you see to + gerund when the verb isn't a prepositional verb, to tell you why they occur, you would have to give me an example.

[Bushwhacker]

Originally Posted by Niall

I think I have come to the conclusion that the original is slightly incorrect in that case.

As for cases where you see to + gerund when the verb isn't a prepositional verb, to tell you why they occur, you would have to give me an example.

OK. Why we say: Do you object to working on Sunday and not Do you object to work on Sunday? maybe object to is prepositional verb too.

Anyway, I've ended up consulting a grammar book and it seems that if you can put a noun after "to", then you have to put the verb in gerund; if not, only the infinitive form is possible. Maybe the point is knowing all the prepositional verbs, then. Do you know where to find a list of them?

According to the whole thing, the sentence I originally proposed is incorrect, because in this case if you put a noun after the "to" of "instigating" it doesn't make sense at all.

Thank You all of you for the ride. Any comments?

[Niall]

Quite right: I think the original sentence doesn't make sense.
object to is a prepositional verb, which is why it is followed by gerund.

I can't find any good lists of prepositional verbs. But here is one of all the most common ones, at least:
List of prepositional expressions

[Bushwhacker]

Originally Posted by Niall

Quite right: I think the original sentence doesn't make sense.
object to is a prepositional verb, which is why it is followed by gerund.

I can't find any good lists of prepositional verbs. But here is one of all the most common ones, at least:
List of prepositional expressions

Thank you for the list. Very helpful. And all the ride very instructive, for me at least.