[Grammar] Replacing to-infinitives with present participles

[NAL123]

Consider these sentences, please:

1) It was Kate's idea to hire bikes. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea)
2) It's not a good idea to drive for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate for me to discuss that now. (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/appropriate)
4) It's so good to see you after all this time! (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/good)

Question: Can I replace the to-infinitives with ing participles, with no change in meaning?

1) It was Kate's idea hiring bikes.
2) It's not a good idea driving for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate me discussing that now.
4) It's so good seeing you after all this time!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Consider these sentences, please:

1) It was Kate's idea to hire bikes. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea)
2) It's not a good idea to drive for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate for me to discuss that now. (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/appropriate)
4) It's so good to see you after all this time! (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/good)

Question: Can I replace the to-infinitives with ing participles, with no change in meaning?

1) It was Kate's idea hiring bikes.
2) It's not a good idea driving for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate me discussing that now.
4) It's so good seeing you after all this time!

The meaning is the same. Lines 1 and 3 would be more natural if you put the -ing words first: Hiring bikes was Kate's idea. Me discussing that now would not be appropriate.

It might be just a matter of common usage.

And I'm wondering whether commas would help. We'll see if anyone else has an opinion.

 

[NAL123]

The meaning is the same. Lines 1 and 3 would be more natural if you put the -ing words first: Hiring bikes was Kate's idea. Me discussing that now would not be appropriate.

It might be just a matter of common usage.

And I'm wondering whether commas would help. We'll see if anyone else has an opinion.

Can I do the same with this sentence too?

5) It is necessary for all of us to be present at the meeting this afternoon.

5) It is necessary all of us being present at the meeting this afternoon.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Consider these sentences, please:

1) It was Kate's idea to hire bikes. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idea)
2) It's not a good idea to drive for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate for me to discuss that now. (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/appropriate)
4) It's so good to see you after all this time! (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/good)

Question: Can I replace the to-infinitives with ing participles, with no change in meaning?

1) It was Kate's idea hiring bikes.
2) It's not a good idea driving for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate me discussing that now.
4) It's so good seeing you after all this time!

It's not the meaning that you need to be concerned about, but the grammaticality.

The extraposed infinitivals are fine, but the gerund-participials are at best marginal, though the basic versions are unproblematic (Hiring bikes was Kate's idea).

I haven’t seen a detailed attempt to say when gerund-participials are OK in extraposition, but certainly some cases sound fine. But I remember that in early work in generative grammar it was said simply that extraposition could not apply to gerund-participials.

 

[NAL123]

It's not the meaning that you need to be concerned about, but the grammaticality.

The extraposed infinitivals are fine, but the gerund-participials are at best marginal, though the basic versions are unproblematic (Hiring bikes was Kate's idea).

I haven’t seen a detailed attempt to say when gerund-participials are OK in extraposition, but certainly some cases sound fine. But I remember that in early work in generative grammar it was said simply that extraposition could not apply to gerund-participials.

Can I say that extraposition always applies to infinitivals?

 

[PaulMatthews]

Can I say that extraposition always applies to infinitivals?

I think it's safer to say that, especially as there's no good reason for using gerund-participial clauses rather than infinitival ones.


1) It was Kate's idea, hiring bikes.
2) It's not a good idea, driving for hours without a rest.
3) It would not be appropriate, me discussing that now.
4) It's so good, seeing you after all this time!

An alternative would be to set off the clauses with a comma, as shown, so that they become 'right dislocation' constructions, where the gerund-participials serve as antecedent for the dummy pronoun "it".

Dislocation constructions have a slight pause in speech before the gerund-participial clauses, and this phonological difference, together with the punctuation, marks them as being right dislocation constructions as opposed to extraposition constructions.

The two constructions serve different information-packaging purposes. And they are subject to different syntactic constraints.