too expensive II
-With this special card, you can stay three more days here.
1-For three more days, that card is too expensive.
2-For staying three more days, that card is too expensive.
3-That card is too expensive for staying three more days.
4-That card is too expensive for three more days.
Which of the above sentences is correct (they are said in response to the very first, numberless sentence).
Why are 2 and 3 wrong? One thinks that it is the card that does the staying?
I think I pushed the button twice or something. Just ignore this post if you see it (and even if you don't).
'Staying'is clearly the problem, but I'm not sure that it does imply that the card will be occupying the room.
What do you think of this explanation:
"That knife is too dull for cutting meat."
means: "That knife is so dull that one can't cut meat with it."
"That card is too expensive for staying three more days."
"That card is so expensive that one can't stay three more days with it." (this is of-course nonsense.)
Why not "That knife is too dull to cut meat"?
- too X for + object
- too X to + verb
But this is not the pb here I think, as
"That card is too expensive to stay three more days" sounds still weird (teachers to confirm).
It has to do with the meaning of the word "stay".
Originally Posted by navi tasan
A. For a three day stay, the card is too expensive. (non-verbal noun)
B. The card is too expensive for a three day stay.
The card is too expensive to stay for three days. (non-finite verb)
These boots are made for walking. (OK)
Originally Posted by Francois
This knife is made for cutting meat. (OK)
That card is too expensive to stay three more days. (OK)
This leash is made for staying. (Semi-OK)
This leash is made to make dogs stay. (OK)
Thanks François and Cas,
Is there anything wrong with:
1-This knife is too dull for cutting meat.
2-For cutting meat, this knife is too dull.
These boots were made for walking.
(Nancy Sinatra, isn't it?)
That card is too expensive to stay three more days.
This sentence is doubtlessly correct. But does it mean exactly the same as the first sentences?
That card is too expensive to stay three more days (with).
My first sentences are about a "three-day card". It is too expensive for three days. Or, to make things simpler, it is too expensive for what it is.
It seems to me that the new sentence says something else or at least could be used in another context:
We should stay more than three more days with that card. If we don't, it won't be worth it. It is as if it is a "ten-day card" (ten or any figure greater than 3) and one is saying that it is too expensive to be used for a three-day stay. It is as if the card could be used for other things and we have a choice.
Don't stay three more days with that card. That'll come out too expensive.
That's the way I feel about it. I'm saying all this of-course, because I want to see whether I am right or not. I have to admit that the context that I have imagined is a bit weird.
By Tdol in forum Advanced
Last Post: 05-Aug-2011, 21:33
By blacknomi in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 24-Aug-2004, 20:10
By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 22-Jul-2004, 04:13
By navi tasan in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 19-Jul-2004, 10:46
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO