Student or Learner
I wonder what should be used after "to reduce". I've been looking for examples with this word and couldn't find any where it would have an infinitive or a gerund after it.
He reduced to produce...(wrong)
He reduced producing... (wong)
He reduced the producing/the production (should be ok)
It seems to me that it takes only a noun or a verbal noun. Am I right on that?
Last edited by Mehrgan; 23-Feb-2011 at 13:24.
It's possible when a verb like "spend" takes an article:
You can reduce spending on advertisement.
"He reduced the production of metal." is possible. But I'd used "decreased" in this sentence, or "He reduced the production level of metal." Maybe that's a stylistic issue.
As far as 'reduced + gerund', you can say, "I reduced my spending on luxuries."
Very interesting isn't it? i think this verb stands out of other verbs. You can't even put a gerund there you need to add a pronoun as well. Interesting.
So, you can say, "Don't stop producing food" but not "Don't reduce producing food." You'd have to say, "Don't reduce [the] production of food."
Verbs that you can't use directly before a gerund include: "reduce, increase, decrease, plan ...
Maybe someone can point out the difference between these two groups of verbs.
It seems to me that you are missing one nuance I am refering to. These verbs "stop, start, continue etc" can take gerund. But only "reduce" can't take it without a pronoun while others can take both gerund and pronoun+gerund.
Stop smoking. OK
Stop your smoking. Ok.
Reduce smoking. Wrong
Reduce your smoking. Ok.
It's just an interesting thing about reduce to my mind.
PS: Oops.... sorry, this is I who am missing the point. You are right here we have them - "reduce, increase, decrease, plan ..." Could some one add more to this group?