Par/pay for

[mehdihas]

Dear Native speakers,
Which veb is correct in the following sentence and why?

Mr. Hill had his money stolen and couldn't pay/pay for his hote bill.

And why is the first part od the sentence in causative form? Is it not better to write the firat part in passive voice such as "Mr Hill's money was stolen ...."?
Thanks.

 

[billmcd]

Dear Native speakers,
Which veb is correct in the following sentence and why?

Mr. Hill had his money stolen and couldn't pay/pay for his hotel bill.

And why is the first part of the sentence in causative form? Is it not better to write the first part in passive voice such as "Mr Hill's money was stolen ...."?
Thanks.

First, you would probably hear either pay/pay for , but pay should be used because in this case you pay the bill and you pay for the room.
Second, either had his money stolen or money was stolen is correct.

 

[Kalyan Brata Das]

I agree with billmcd... you should use pay.. and not pay for. e.g. pay the bill.. the bill here is object and if you use pay for, you need to say pay for the room, pay for the book as both book or room is not object here, they are the reason for the payment.

for your second question, both of them are correct. however , if you use his money was stolen, it will look better.

 

[5jj]

f[/STRIKE] For your second question, both of them are correct. [STRIKE]h[/STRIKE] However , if you use "his money was stolen", it will look better.

It is not a matter ' 'looking better'. These are two different ways of talking about the situation.

His money was stolen. This is a fairly neutral way of reporting the situation.
He had his money stolen. - This makes the situation slightly more dramatic. It has the idea of: - Something happened to him , and that something was the stealing of his money.

​