I saw him do that vs I remember him doing that

[Alexey86]

Hello! Why do you think we can use both the bare infinitive and the gerund verb forms after perception verbs (I saw him do that/doing that.), but only the gerund form after remember (I remember him doing (not do) that.)?

[Piscean]

Some verbs are followed by the bare infinitive, some with the to-infinitive, a couple with either; some are followed by the -ing form only, some with an infinitive only, some with either with little change in meaning, and some with either with a real change in meaning.

Why this should be so is something few of us know these days. A student of the history and development of the English language could possibly tell you.

[Alexey86]

I know the difference between remember doing and remember to do, but my question is about a particular structure: subject + verb + object + verb.

Let's compare the following pair: I want him to do that vs I let him do that.

There are two different types of relation between the verbs in these sentences: an indirect one (one's wish, being a state of mind, can't be the direct cause of someone else's action) and a direct one (someone did something only after (s)he was allowed to do that). I think this difference determines the presence or absence of to in the S-V-O-V structure.

Let's consider another pair: I want him to do that vs I saw him do that.

There are no intermediate links/conditions between the process of perception and the action => no to needed. The only difference between I let him do that and I saw him do that is the direction of causality (someone's action triggers the process of perception).

Maybe someone has something to say about the difference between see and remember.

[Alexey86]

When you are recounting, you would use "I saw him do that" as you are just talking about a past action. When you are reliving a past event, you would use "I saw him doing that" as you are talking about the past as if it is happening right now.

Thank you, tracy18! I think the distinction between recounting and reliving correlates with the directness-indirectness distinction in terms of remoteness:
recounting = remoteness in time vs reliving = immediacy (a past event is 'here and now')
indirectness = remoteness due to the presence of intermediate links vs directness = an immediate connection between actions

[Raymott]

Sometimes the choice between 'do' and 'doing' depends on how much of the action you saw/heard/etc.
"I saw him cross the road." I saw the whole thing; he left the pavement on one side, went across the road, and ended at the pavement on the other side. A completed action.
"I saw him crossing the road." I saw him walking in the middle of the road, apparently going from one side to the other, but I didn't see him on both sides of the road. A part of an action.

[Alexey86]

I can't see tracy18's reply anymore. Was it deleted?

[emsr2d2]

Tracy18 has been banned. Consequently, all their posts have gone.

[Rover_KE]

LOJITARTA, all you have done so far is repeat part of the original posts, wasting everybody's time.

If you do this again, you will be banned.

[jutfrank]

Hi Alexey. As you know, I've been away for a while so I've missed this discussion. Let me catch up by starting here:

Let's compare the following pair: I want him to do that vs I let him do that.

There are two different types of relation between the verbs in these sentences: an indirect one (one's wish, being a state of mind, can't be the direct cause of someone else's action) and a direct one (someone did something only after (s)he was allowed to do that). I think this difference determines the presence or absence of to in the S-V-O-V structure.

Your direct/indirect idea is nice, and I think I can see how you're thinking. I'm not sure I agree, however. How would you explain the (apparent) synonymy between let someone do something and allow someone to do something? Would you see the difference in pattern as evidence of a difference in meaning?

[Alexey86]

How would you explain the (apparent) synonymy between let someone do something and allow someone to do something? Would you see the difference in pattern as evidence of a difference in meaning?

Hello, Frank! I'm really glad to see you again! I wouldn't say these patterns are synonymous. "Let me know if you need anything" isn't equal in meaning to "Allow me to know..." The former doesn't mean asking for permission and considers the hearer the direct source of information, while the latter makes the hearer an intermediate link just allowing to know but not necessarily giving information as such. Even when the meaning is practically the same, such as in "Allow me to/Let me enter the room," the formality of "allow" is a kind of distance in communication that I see as an analog of indirectness.