find/know something (to) V

[sitifan]

I found the business (to) do well.
(Ho's Complete English Grammar, Book 3, page 50)
The author, Ho Limin, says that "to" is optional.
Is the quoted sentence acceptable to native speakers?

 

[emsr2d2]

The sentence is ungrammatical with or without "to".

 

[sitifan]

The sentence is ungrammatical with or without "to".

I never knew this watch (to) stop.
(Ho's Complete English Grammar, Book 5, page 21)
The author, Ho Limin, says that "to" is optional.
Is the quoted sentence acceptable to native speakers?

 

[emsr2d2]

No. The tense is unnatural and "to" is obligatory.

I have never known this watch to stop.

 

[Phaedrus]

I found the business (to) do well.
(Ho's Complete English Grammar, Book 3, page 50)
The author, Ho Limin, says that "to" is optional.
Is the quoted sentence acceptable to native speakers?

The sentence is ungrammatical with or without "to".

The researchers found the business to do well under such circumstances. (passive: The business was found to do well under such circumstances.)
= The researchers found that the business did well under such circumstances. (passive: It was found that the business did well under such circumstances.)

 

[5jj]

The researchers found the business to do well under such circumstances.

That seems unnatural to me. Where did you find it?

 

[Phaedrus]

That seems unnatural to me. Where did you find it?

I made it up. If I hadn't, I'd have put it in quotation marks and given the source.

Like you, I speak English natively, which entitles me to make up examples; and that one doesn't seem unnatural to me, which is why I used it.

The point was to refute ems's notion that the structure is ungrammatical. The structure is fine, even if the author of Sitifan's textbook doesn't know how to use it.

From COCA: "We set about to make a movie that would deeply resonate with the RIGHT people -- and we've found it to do just that" (bold lettering mine).

Phaedrus

P.S. to Sitifan: Ho Limin's notion that to is optional in this construction is incorrect. It's grammatically indispensible: *I found it do . . . is execrably ungrammatical.

 

[5jj]

I made it up. If I hadn't, I'd have put it in quotation marks and given the source.

Like you, I speak English natively, which entitles me to make up examples; and that one doesn't seem unnatural to me, which is why I used it.

It would have been helpful to explain this rather than simply present four sentences.

The point was to refute ems's notion that the structure is ungrammatical. The structure is fine, even if the author of Sitifan's textbook doesn't know how to use it.

Presenting one self-made sentence does not exactly refute (: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute) anything,

 

[emsr2d2]

The researchers found the business to do well under such circumstances. (passive: The business was found to do well under such circumstances.)
= The researchers found that the business did well under such circumstances. (passive: It was found that the business did well under such circumstances.)

I find both passive versions and the bold green sentence absolutely natural. For me, the bold blue sentence doesn't work at all. It's the combination of active voice with "found to do well" that I can't imagine any native speaker using. The problem seems to be the choice of verb, though. With a different verb, it's fine.

The boys found the park to be well-equipped and welcoming.
The park was found to be well-equipped and welcoming.

She found the hotel to have no atmosphere.
The hotel was found to have no atmosphere.

I just can't make it work with "do".

 

[Phaedrus]

It's the combination of active voice with "found to do well" that I can't imagine any native speaker using. The problem seems to be the choice of verb, though. With a different verb, it's fine. . . .
I just can't make it work with "do".

Did you see the example from the COCA corpus that I presented in my last post? The example uses “have found it to do” and looks and sounds pretty darn native to me.

 

[Phaedrus]

Presenting one self-made sentence does not exactly refute (: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute) anything,

I took myself to be REMINDING her, with my one self-made example, of what should be obviously correct to any native speaker, one example standing in for an INFINITE number of possible examples.

 

[5jj]

Phaedrus, when you have two native speakers, both teachers, saying that they feel something is unnatural/ungrammatical, then it is not 'obviously correct'. We have different opinions here.

 

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, when you have two native speakers, both teachers, saying that they feel something is unnatural/ungrammatical, then it is not 'obviously correct'. We have different opinions here.

Ems's examples in post #9 show that she has in mind the object complement construction ("found it well-equipped"), which can be fleshed out with "to be."

In "found it to do well," we have something rather different in meaning, the speaker reporting a discovery as to how a thing or person behaves.

Would you like me to find "official" examples in Jespersen, Poutsma, Visser, etc.? Must I go to that extent to show that I am not out of my mind here?

Consider the following example (from this website): "The engine remains original, and the C&SC writers are reported to have found the car to perform well."

Where do you guys suppose the passive construction ("was found to . . .") comes from? Do you suppose it was born without an active-voice correlate as its mother?

 

[emsr2d2]

I have no idea what it was born out of, but I will stand by my assertion that, in BrE at least, that particular construction with "do" sounds extremely unnatural and I wouldn't use it. Maybe it's yet another of our long list of BrE/AmE differences.

 

[Phaedrus]

I have no idea what it was born out of, but I will stand by my assertion that, in BrE at least, that particular construction with "do" sounds extremely unnatural and I wouldn't use it. Maybe it's yet another of our long list of BrE/AmE differences.

Do you feel the same way about the infinitival progressive? Google shows 791,000 hits for "found him to be doing" alone. Probably some of them are British.

 

[emsr2d2]

Are you talking about something like "I went to look for Luke and found him to be doing his homework"? If so, I'd be OK with that although I wouldn't use it. I'd say "I found him doing his homework".

 

[sitifan]

Have you ever known me (to) cheat others?
(Ho's Complete English Grammar, Book 3, page 50)
The author, Ho Limin, says that "to" is optional.
Is the quoted sentence acceptable to native speakers?

 

[5jj]

Please ask that question in a fresh thread, sitifan. We don't want to get sidetracked.

 

[Phaedrus]

Are you talking about something like "I went to look for Luke and found him to be doing his homework"? If so, I'd be OK with that although I wouldn't use it. I'd say "I found him doing his homework".

Well, probably many of those Google examples work like that. The type that I have in mind, however, goes something like this:

Luke's parole officer found him to be doing good things for the community and thus saw no need to send him back to jail.

The idea is that Luke's parole officer found that Luke was doing good things for the community, not that he necessarily caught him in a community-benefitting act.

 

[5jj]

The researchers found the business to do well under such circumstances.

That's the sentence emsr2d2 and I have been talking about.