[Grammar] "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

[simile]

"think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

S + consider/find/think + it + adj. + to V . . .
Sue found it important to learn computer skills.

S + consider/find/think + it + adj. + that clause
The teacher found it strange that many students were absent today.

S + consider/find/think + it + adj. + V-ing
We consider it useless going over the subject again.

Are these three structures equally the same and can be used interchangeably?
While I'm preparing the teaching materials, the teacher's manual only tells me there are three structures like these. But it doesn't tell me what's the difference and in what situation and background should any of these three be used? Or they are actually the same, so don't bother to tell the difference?

Thank you in advance if any of you reply to my question.

 

[Raymott]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

S + consider/find/think + it + adj. + to V . . .
Sue found it important to learn computer skills.

S + consider/find/think + it + adj. + that clause
The teacher found it strange that many students were absent today.

S + consider/find/think + it + adj. + V-ing
We consider it useless going over the subject again.

Are these three structures equally the same and can be used interchangeably?
While I'm preparing the teaching materials, the teacher's manual only tells me there are three structures like these. But it doesn't tell me what's the difference and in what situation and background should any of these three be used? Or they are actually the same, so don't bother to tell the difference?

Thank you in advance if any of you reply to my question.

But they mean and say different things. How can they be interchangeable?
It's only necessary to point out that "verbing" and "to verb" are not always interchangeable.

"Sue found it important to learn computer skills." Your first sentence.
"Sue found it important learning computer skills." Wrong.
"Sue found it important that learning computer skills." Wrong.

(I might have misunderstood your question).​

 

[simile]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

Take the third sentence for example.
Are there any difference between the the following sentences?
We consider it useless going over the subject again.
We consider it useless to go over the subject again.
We consider it useless that we go over the subject again.
What's the difference in the speaker's intention when saying the three sentences?

 

[Raymott]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

Take the third sentence for example.
Are there any difference between the the following sentences?
We consider it useless going over the subject again.
We consider it useless to go over the subject again.
We consider it useless that we go over the subject again.
What's the difference in the speaker's intention when saying the three sentences?

1 and 2 mean the same (in this example). 3. is wrong.
The speaker's intention is probably the same, but I'm not in the speaker's place to know that.
"We consider useless to going over same subject again" probably has the same speaker's intention too but it's not grammatical.

 

[simile]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

1 and 2 mean the same (in this example). 3. is wrong.
The speaker's intention is probably the same, but I'm not in the speaker's place to know that.
"We consider useless to going over same subject again" probably has the same speaker's intention too but it's not grammatical.

Hi, I get confused. You say "We consider useless to going over same subject again" is not grammatical. Do you mean "to go" or "going"? I didn't write "to going"...

"We consider it useless that we go over the subject again." is wrong.
"The teacher found it strange that many students were absent today." is correct.
How do we know when to use that-clause with the "V+O+OC" structure?

​

 

[Raymott]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

Hi, I get confused. You say "We consider useless to going over same subject again" is not grammatical. Do you mean "to go" or "going"? I didn't write "to going"...

I know you didn't write it. I did. My point was that a person can make their intentions known with an ungrammatical sentence. But that doesn't make it right.

"We consider it useless that we go over the subject again." is wrong.
Well, I could almost accept this. But it's awkward. 'Go" would have to be subjunctive here. It's just not natural.
"We consider it useless that we should go over ..." is better.

"The teacher found it strange that many students were absent today." is correct.
How do we know when to use that-clause with the "V+O+OC" structure?
​

I can't answer that, sorry. There isn't one specific factor that I can think of. The problems seems to be with the tenses.
​

 

[simile]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

I think I use the wrong word "intention". I don't really mean what the speaker is going to do. I mean, by using V-ing, does the speaker express the idea of "something is undergoing" and by using "to V", does the speaker express the idea of "something will be done, but not yet now"?

My interpretation is as follows: (I should use "interpretation," not "intention".)
We consider it useless to go over the subject again.
-->We are not going over the subject now. We had gone over the subject before but if we do it again later, we can predict that this action is useless. So we'd better not do it later.

We consider it useless going over the subject again.
-->We had gone over the subject before and we are actually going over this subject again now. But after some time, we understand that this action is not useful. At this moment, someone may stand up and say, "We consider it useless going over the subject again." to someone who just asked them to go over the subject once again.

Does my interpretation correspond to the native speakers' feeling of these sentences?

 

[Raymott]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

I think I use the wrong word "intention". I don't really mean what the speaker is going to do. I mean, by using V-ing, does the speaker express the idea of "something is undergoing" and by using "to V", does the speaker express the idea of "something will be done, but not yet now"?

My interpretation is as follows: (I should use "interpretation," not "intention".)
We consider it useless to go over the subject again.
-->We are not going over the subject now. We had gone over the subject before but if we do it again later, we can predict that this action is useless. So we'd better not do it later.

We consider it useless going over the subject again.
-->We had gone over the subject before and we are actually going over this subject again now. But after some time, we understand that this action is not useful. At this moment, someone may stand up and say, "We consider it useless going over the subject again." to someone who just asked them to go over the subject once again.

Does my interpretation correspond to the native speakers' feeling of these sentences?

As I said in post #4, those two sentences mean the same thing.
(However, this doesn't mean you can substitute one form for the other in all other sentences. The context often means that only one form is correct.)

 

[BobK]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

But they mean and say different things. How can they be interchangeable?
It's only necessary to point out that "verbing" and "to verb" are not always interchangeable.

"Sue found it important to learn computer skills." Your first sentence.
"Sue found it important learning computer skills." Wrong.
"Sue found it important that learning computer skills." Wrong.

(I might have misunderstood your question).​

I imagine the OP was talking about the algebra (although I don't think that thinking about language in such terms is at all helpful - and any benefit it may have is outweighed by the resulting lack of fluency. I know people who 'talk [foreign languages] like a book'; it's impressive, but it's not natural.)

b

 

[simile]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

I imagine the OP was talking about the algebra (although I don't think that thinking about language in such terms is at all helpful - and any benefit it may have is outweighed by the resulting lack of fluency. I know people who 'talk [foreign languages] like a book'; it's impressive, but it's not natural.)

b

I actually skip this part when teaching. I only taught my students the "to V" structure. If I teach them the "V-ing" and "that-clause," my students will naturally ask me why and when to use a certain structure. And I won't have the explanation ready for them.

Native speakers, please put yourself in our shoes. We are not native speakers. And English is a foreign language in Taiwan. It's not an official language. We have to follow the native speakers' norm in terms of teaching and exams.

If English is an official language in Taiwan, then we can indigenize it. In that case, we don't need to ask your norm. We don't need to know what you think about. We don't need to follow your opinions. We are just comfortable with our own English language just like Australians are comfortable with their Aussie accent and their own usage and slang. They don't need to follow Americans' norm.

Please understand. This is what the forum is for.

I'm not talking about algebra. This is serious.

 

[tzfujimino]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

I actually skip this part when teaching. I only taught my students the "to V" structure. If I teach them the "V-ing" and "that-clause," my students will naturally ask me why and when to use a certain structure. And I won't have the explanation ready for them.

Native speakers, please put yourself in our shoes. We are not native speakers. And English is a foreign language in Taiwan. It's not an official language. We have to follow the native speakers' norm in terms of teaching and exams.

If English is an official language in Taiwan, then we can indigenize it. In that case, we don't need to ask your norm. We don't need to know what you think about it. We don't need to follow your opinions. We are just comfortable with our own English language just like Australians are comfortable with their Aussie accent and their own usage and slang. They don't need to follow Americans' norm.

Please understand. This is what the forum is for.

I'm not talking about algebra. This is serious.

Hello, simile.:-D
I understand what you are trying to say (do) because I'm a non-native teacher like you.
We cannot always apply mathematical logic to language, unfortunately. (I think this is what Bob means by 'algebra'.)
All we (non-native speakers/learners/teachers) can do is to accept the fact.

 

[Tdol]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

"We consider it useless that we go over the subject again." is wrong."The teacher found it strange that many students were absent today." is correct.
How do we know when to use that-clause with the "V+O+OC" structure?
​

There may be other underlying reasons why one is correct and another not and it's often hard, or impossible, to deduce rules- sometimes these are done on a case by case basis. English is a sloppy mess that combines grammar from the different languages that went into its creation. This has advantages and disadvantages- it is a flexible language that can adapt enormously, but it also has more than its fair share of irregularities and anomalies.

 

[BobK]

Re: "think+O+OC+to V" = "think+O+OC+that clause" = "think+O+OC+V-ing" ?

I actually skip this part when teaching. ...
Good :up: ;-)

Please understand. This is what the forum is for.

....

I do understand how language learners feel; I speak 5 and read 2 more. I'm sorry to have upset you, and I'm very glad you don't wish this theoretical framework on your students. (I used the word 'algebra' because my CELTA teacher used it. He kept saying 'let's think about the algebra' - which is all very well for teachers but not for students.) ;-)

b