Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    OK. So we have covered "too / when" and now "too / as". Going back to your original question, "I wonder whether D [too/for] is correct or not", have you been able to find an example where the structure "too / for" expresses a causal relation? Because that's the structure we're actually looking for.
    Here's where "too / for" works:
    - This book is too simple for me.
    - Our apartment is too small for us.
    well, I have provided examples. but you still...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    OK. So we have covered "too / when" and now "too / as". Going back to your original question, "I wonder whether D [too/for] is correct or not", have you been able to find an example where the structure "too / for" expresses a causal relation? Because that's the structure we're actually looking for.
    Here's where "too / for" works:
    - This book is too simple for me.
    - Our apartment is too small for us.
    well, I have provided examples. but you are still... I don't know what to say...

  3. #13
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    42,981
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    They are not examples of the structre you assked about- they aren't too...for

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    Thank you tdol and Casiopea for your answers and patience. Then I understand that after "too adj" (leaving the common form -too adj to infinitive- aside), a result (using "so, therefore, consequently, as a result ..etc") can be expressed, but not a reason (using "for, since, as, because) and that the use of some adjectives, such as shocked and upset, with "too" is semantically odd. Right?

    Last but not least, are these uses which are from Google natural and idiomatic?


    - I was too tired, for I couldn't get to anything.

    http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?...icp=1&.intl=us

    - She told me she drank so much because she was too happy for she won two awards of designing.

    http://www.winglin.net/fanfic/ah_zee/chapter_16.shtml

    - It was too bad, for she did not feel financially able to follow him.

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...r&ct=clnk&cd=4

    - Her apparent loneliness was too bad, for she was an exotic beauty, with a dark-tan complexion, and jet-black hair streaming down her back, to lightly caress the very top of her shapely derriere.

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...r&ct=clnk&cd=3
    Last edited by curious; 19-Mar-2006 at 12:15.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    Quote Originally Posted by curious
    Thank you tdol and Casiopea for your answers and patience.
    You're most welcome, curious.

    Yes. Semantics is the culprit here.

    Let's look at the goggled fare. Note, "for ~ because" are synonyms, but "for" doesn't sound natural to me (it's not in my dialect), so please allow me to replace "for" with "because".

    [1] I was too tired [to call you when I got home], because I couldn't get to anything.

    =>The reason I didn't call you when I got home was because I couldn't get to anything, and that made me excessively tired.

    Compare the semantics of [1] above with that of our original example sentence below,

    I was too shocked [to speak] when I received the bill for my car, because I never thought it would be as much as that.

    => The reason I couldn't speak was because I never thought it would be as much as that, and that made me excessively shocked.

    Now, let's compare the semantics of our original "too/for" with that of "so/as", keeping in mind, of course, the relationship among "for ~ as ~ because ~ since".

    I was so shocked when I received the bill for my car, because I never thought it would be as much as that.

    => The reason I was shocked was because I never thought
    it would be as much as that.

    Do you see the difference? It's semantic similarities like that that test designers draw upon when looking for examples for multiple choice questions. Learners hear and read "too/for", so naturally they assume it's a possible answer, but is it? Take another look at the semantics. The better choice, for our original example, is "so/as".

    Getting back to our google fare:

    [2] . . . she was too happy, because she won two awards [for] designing.
    [4] . . . she was so happy, because she won two awards [for] designing.

    [3] . . . was too bad (that . . . ), because she . . . .

    [4] . . . was too bad (that . . . ), because she . . . .


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    Thank you very much, Casiopea.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: paired structures

    You're most welcome, curious.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. "to wish" in structures
    By andrey_mezenin in forum Teaching English
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-Sep-2005, 12:59
  2. Compare English and Spanish Writing structures
    By Euterpe in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Apr-2005, 00:57

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •