Yes, they are all grammatically correct.Originally Posted by vvaann
I don't see any difference in meaning in the different forms. (Perhaps Somebody else will have a different opinion.)Originally Posted by vvaann
Regards,
RonBee
8)
My friend wrote these sentences:
1. All we can do is promise that it will be kept secret
2. All ministers have to do is wait
3. All you have to do is answer the following question
What I am wondering is whether they're grammatically correct!
Are they different from these:
1. All we can do is to promise that it will be kept secret
2. All ministers have to do is to wait
3. All you have to do is to answer the following question
Yes, they are all grammatically correct.Originally Posted by vvaann
I don't see any difference in meaning in the different forms. (Perhaps Somebody else will have a different opinion.)Originally Posted by vvaann
Regards,
RonBee
8)
They are all grammatically correct.
Do you think the sentences without "to" are more likely to be used?
It's hard to say why we would use one form of the sentences and not the other.
mm...Maybe the ones with "to" sound more serious?
Let's take this sentence as an example.
"All we can do is promise that it will be kept secret"
"is" and "promise" are two verbs, and I often thought they should not be placed so. Now, I realize it was an oblique perception!
In BE,at least, you will sometimes hear people put 'to' before the second verb in that sentence. :o
I imagine it happens in AE as well, though perhaps not as frequently. I'm not sure. In any event, using the optional "to" in those sentences somehow sounds a bit more serious in manner or I might even say it displays some slight extra degree of intentness.
Quite possibly here, too.![]()
Originally Posted by tdol
It's good to know we really do speak the same language.
![]()
![]()