I find climbing that mountain difficult.

[Phlebas the Phoenician]

I think he was lying when he said the book wasn't on the table. I didn't see it there.

If you insist on using "find" you could say, "I looked for it, but I didn't find it there."

I was attempting, not to practice the use of "find" (I'm a native-speaking ESL professor), but to illustrate the construction in which "find" is complemented by a negated infinitival clause, which construction I understand as signifying a negative finding; hence the context I proposed, involving something found not to be the case.

In general, with the exception of Jutfrank, I find my suggestion not to have been well received; but, as you can see, that doesn't prevent me from using it (the construction does exist and is legitimate grammatical English) or from illustrating the possibility of its use to English language learners.

 

[neb090]

I was attempting, not to practice the use of "find" (I'm a native-speaking ESL professor), but to illustrate the construction in which "find" is complemented by a negated infinitival clause, which construction I understand as signifying a negative finding; hence the context I proposed, involving something found not to be the case.

In general, with the exception of Jutfrank, I find my suggestion not to have been well received; but, as you can see, that doesn't prevent me from using it (the construction does exist and is legitimate grammatical English) or from illustrating the possibility of its use to English language learners.

I'd like to express my gratitude to all that gave your thoughts and advice on this question.

So do you mean "I find the book not (to be) on the table" and "I don't find the book on the table" are both acceptable?

 

[teechar]

How about with a different context?

I believe that he was lying when he said that the book was on the table. I find the book not to be on the table. Go and see for yourself. You will find that it isn't there.

Still no good, I'm afraid. In fact, that example doesn't work for me at all!

 

[neb090]

Still no good, I'm afraid. In fact, that example doesn't work for me at all!

Which one are you referring to? I find or I don't find?

 

[5jj]

I find the book not to be on the table.

I find my suggestion not to have been well received;

I find both of these unnatural.

 

[5jj]

IIn general, with the exception of Jutfrank, I find my suggestion not to have been well received;

I also find this awkward. I would have said (assuming I used the suspect words):

I find my suggestion not to have been well received, except by jutfrank.
or
With the exception of Jutfrank, nobody has received my suggestion well.

 

[5jj]

I'm a native-speaking ESL professor

I find my suggestion not to have been well received; but, as you can see, that doesn't prevent me from using it (the construction does exist and is legitimate grammatical English)

I wonder how many of the over 946,576 esl teachers currently employed in the United States would agree with you..

 

[jutfrank]

If we can this respectful, I'd be interested to know exactly where people disagree.

I would have said (assuming I used the suspect words):

I find my suggestion not to have been well received

You're clearly saying that the sentence is grammatical, right? So what exactly do you disagree with?

I find my suggestion not to have been well received

I find both of these unnatural.

Do you mean it's grammatical but unnatural?

 

[5jj]

You're clearly saying that the sentence is grammatical, right?

No.

 

[teechar]

If we can this respectful, I'd be interested to know exactly where people disagree.

What happened to the verb between those two words?

 

[jutfrank]

No.

Then I don't understand post #26.

 

[jutfrank]

What happened to the verb between those two words?

I don't know! Has anyone seen it? I think it was 'keep'.

 

[Phlebas the Phoenician]

I also find this awkward. I would have said (assuming I used the suspect words):

I find my suggestion not to have been well received, except by jutfrank.
or
With the exception of Jutfrank, nobody has received my suggestion well.

I agree with you there, 5jj, and only there. I placed "with the exception of Jutfrank" in an awkward position; indeed, I regretted my placement of it shortly after making my post, but neglected to go back and edit it. The position in which you have placed the phrase makes the sentence much better.

I disagree with all your other judgements about the grammaticality and/or naturalness of sentences that I have used or proposed in this thread. The structure in which "find" is followed by an infinitive clause exists and is grammatical, as is the structure in which it is followed by a negated infinitival clause.

Members who do some research will find this to be the case.
They will not find it not to be the case.

I wonder how many of the over 946,576 esl teachers currently employed in the United States would agree with you..

Jutfrank accepts the structure, and Jutfrank is an ESL teacher. He's also a VIP member on this forum. You seem to find my own grammaticality and naturalness judgements (to be) utterly worthless -- setting aside, of course, any perceived worthiness that they may have in your mind of being publicly trampled to death. However, how many hundreds of thousands of those teachers would you say that Jutfrank's grammaticality and naturalness judgments in this matter might be representative of?

 

[5jj]

you seem to find my own grammaticality and naturalness judgements (to be) utterly worthless

Not at all. It is simply that, in this case, my opinion is different from yours and jutfrank's, as is, it seems, teeachar's.

-- setting aside, of course, any perceived worthiness that they may have in your mind of being publicly trampled to death.

Sorry, but I don't understand that.

However, how many hundreds of thousands of those teachers would you say that Jutfrank's grammaticality and naturalness judgments in this matter might be representative of?

I have no idea.

 

[jutfrank]

Honestly, I'm surprised that there's such apparent disagreement here because Phlebas's examples don't present a problem to me. I'm genuinely interested in identifying the precise location of the disagreement. Is it something about the use of the infinitival? Or more about the negation? Or something about copula 'be'? Or something else?

Can we do a test?

a) I find him rude.
b) I find him to be rude.
c) I find him not rude.
d) I find him to be not rude.
e) I find him not to be rude.
f) I don't find him rude.
g) I don't find him to be rude.

Which ones, if any, do we think are grammatically wrong? Does the fact that the predicate (rude) is an adjective matter at all? If we change 'rude' to 'a bore', does it change anything? I suggest we talk about grammaticality and/or whether there are any meaning differences only. Whether these are things that might come to our own lips is a different matter. Or have I missed the point?

If you can improve my test, please do.

 

[5jj]

I am moving this thread to the linguistics thread, which is, I think, a more suitable place for continuation of this discussion.

 

[teechar]

Those are not the same!

e) I find him not to be rude.

Take that one, and change the ending a little:
"I find him not to be in the house". Now, it's similar to the one I complained about. Do you find it okay?

 

[jutfrank]

Do you find it okay?

In the right context I think it's fine, yes, though you do have to force a context somewhat. It's equivalent to Phlebas's I find the book not to be on the table.

Those are not the same!

What do you mean?

 

[5jj]

Here are my responses to yur test;

a) I find him rude. OK.
b) I find him to be rude. OK.
c) I find him not rude. Not OK
d) I find him to be not rude. Not OK.
e) I find him not to be rude. Not OK
f) I don't find him rude. OK
g) I don't find him to be rude. OK

Which ones, if any, do we think are grammatically wrong?

I suggest we talk about grammaticality and/or whether there are any meaning differences only.

I have used the words 'Not OK'. I, personally do not find the question of grammaticality helpful here. You wrote of some earlier examples, "For me, all four sentences are grammatical, regardless of how bad they are". If they are bad, they are not OK! You also wrote "Logically, you can negate the predicate, but it's usually better simply to use an alternative word instead". I have tended to use suc words as "I find both of these unnatural.

Whether these are things that might come to our own lips is a different matter.

I don't agree. Whether or not experienced teachers who are native speakers find something natural is, I think, far more important to most of our members than academic proofs of grammaticality.

And, if you have to 'force a context' to be able to use an expression, then it's probably wise to suggest that learners do not use it.

 

[jutfrank]

Here are my responses to yur test;

Thanks. I think I understand what you mean now. The issue for you is with the negation.

You wrote of some earlier examples, "For me, all four sentences are grammatical, regardless of how bad they are". If they are bad, they are not OK!

Yes, grammatically and logically OK, but not OK in terms of use of English. Exactly.

A sentence's status of being grammatical is irrelevant to whether it counts as good, or natural, or appropriate language. This is a very important point, in my opinion.

You also wrote "Logically, you can negate the predicate, but it's usually better simply to use an alternative word instead". I have tended to use such words as "I find both of these unnatural.

Again, the logic of a sentence is irrelevant to whether the sentence is good, natural, appropriate, etc. Logic is about meaning.

I find it not on the table.

The negation here is to do with its being on the table. That's what I understood Phlebas's sentence to be getting at.

I don't find it on the table.

The negation here is of the finding, not of the truth value of it being on the table. That's a different logic, different meaning, due to the position of the negator. (I think this is where we disagree.) I don't think the notion of naturalness affects this. I don't think we agree on what naturalness is, anyway.

I don't agree. Whether or not experienced teachers who are native speakers find something natural is, I think, far more important to most of our members than academic proofs of grammaticality.

Yes, I totally agree with this. In fact, I think is extremely important to remember. I obviously didn't make my position clear.

And, if you have to 'force a context' to be able to use an expression, then it's probably wise to suggest that learners do not use it.

Yes, on the whole, I agree.

Is the disagreement largely that we're just confusing what others mean by 'OK'?