know + pronoun + (to) V

[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]

I find it acceptable, with or without 'to'.

 

[Phaedrus]

I find it acceptable, with or without 'to'.

The sentence without to (Have you ever known me cheat others?) seems both unnatural and ungrammatical to me. Where did Ho Limin find the sentence?

 

[5jj]

The form with 'to' is certainly far more common, but the form without exists: https://www.google.com/search?q="Ha...ZYEkgEDNS4xmAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-books

 

[sitifan]

The sentence without to (Have you ever known me cheat others?) seems both unnatural and ungrammatical to me. Where did Ho Limin find the sentence?

I don't know.

 

[Phaedrus]

The form with 'to' is certainly far more common, but the form without exists:

That's very interesting. I'm glad that your link is to instances of Have you ever known me, in which we can observe what follows and draw conclusions about the acceptability of the construction itself (for a large number of speakers), which can be realized in countless ways, not the acceptability of a single sentence, which perhaps never was and never will be uttered or written again. When we talk about constructions, we get a lot more bang for our grammatical buck.

I have faded part of this post, which appears to have little to do with the OP. 5jj, Moderator

Not surprisingly, contra my judgment that I found it do well (sans to) was "execrably ungrammatical" in Sitifan's other thread, started in tandem with this one, it appears that the construction is not, or at least used not to be, perceived as ungrammatical by many speakers. I had been planning to make this correction in that thread (which, incidentally, is not a correction to my judgement that my variation on Ho Limin's example is perfectly fine), but Rover locked the thread.

- "I find the King's English express my meaning better." (George Eliot, Fel. Holt, I, Ch. XVII, cited in Poutsma's grammar)
- "You'll find the lock go the better for a little oil." (Charles Dickens, Chuz., Ch XXXIX, cited in Poutsma's grammar)
- "You'll never find him neglect (or to neglect) his work." (from Curme's grammar, an example that the great grammarian produced all by himself)
- "men may wel often fynde a lordes sone do shame and vileynye." (Chaucer c1386, Canturbury Tales, cited in Visser, bold lettering and underlining mine)
- "the parliament founde great harme growe" (St. Thomas More, cited in Visser)
- "I find it tax all my powers to convey the main forms and forces in that development." (H.G. Wells, The New Machiavelli, cited in Visser)

None of this changes, of course, that I still find that construction hideously unnatural, to the extent that I find it ungrammatical. But in light of those august authors' having used the to-less construction, I am obliged to concede that the to-less version is, or at least once was, grammatical, even if I have never in my life heard a native speaker use it. Interestingly, Poutsma writes: "So far as appears from the available evidence, the bare infinitive is the rule after to find, the case being reversed after to know."

 

[Phaedrus]

I have faded post of this post, which appears to have little to do with the OP.

Who's speaking? Your sentence is ungrammatical. Dear members, it was not I who faded my own post. The moderator who faded it really ought either to add that text to the unjustly locked tandem thread, which is so closely related to this one as practically to be the same topic, or to respectfully leave it unmolested.

 

[5jj]

Who's speaking? Your sentence is ungrammatical
Dear members, it was not I who faded my own post.

Sorry. I have corrected my slips.

The moderator who faded it really ought either to add that text to the unjustly locked tandem thread, which is so closely related to this one as practically to be the same topic, or to respectfully leave it unmolested.

Rover, who closed the other thread, explained why in that thread. I will ensure that this thread sticks to discussion of sitifan's question in post #1.

 

[Phaedrus]

I will ensure that this thread sticks to discussion of sitifan's question in post #1.

You'll recall Sitifan began that thread by looking at both verbs, find and know. You encouraged a splitting of the thread. That's how this thread was born. They were one.

 

[5jj]

Any more posts not directly related to posts #1-4 will be deleted.

 

[Skrej]

The original sentence seems completely ungrammatical to me without 'to'. It's beyond unnatural and simply wrong to my ear.

 

[emsr2d2]

It's entirely natural with or without "to" for this BrE speaker. I would go so far as to say that I omit "to" far more often than I include it in my own speech.

Have you ever known me lose?
Have you ever known me cheat?
Have you ever known me do that?

If I were to reword each one to a different construction, with much the same meaning, the "to" becomes obligatory.

Have I ever been known to lose?
Have I ever been known to cheat?
Have I ever been known to do that?

 

[Phaedrus]

Have you ever known me lose?
Have you ever known me cheat?
Have you ever known me do that?

Where did you find those sentences? I'm asking you the same question that 5jj asked me the other day.

 

[jutfrank]

My impression of this as a native speaker is that the construction sounds at best awful without the to.

The construction in the other blocked thread I find similarly bad without to.

 

[5jj]

A few people who were happy to use the construction:

you ever known me do anything so dishonorable or wicked that you would hesitate to entrust a child to me?

The Mists of Avalon: A Novel Marion Zimmer Bradley · 2001


Prisoner Have you ever known me neglect my duty as master or as pilot when on board the Director ?

Naval Courts Martial, 1793-1815 John D. Byrn · 2009


Have you ever known me leave you or any one in the lurch ?

Phoebe Junior Margaret Oliphant, ‎Elizabeth Langland · 2002


'Have you ever known me lie to you?' said Graham.

Hunt the Slipper Henry Cecil · 2008

 

[jutfrank]

Just looking quickly at some of those examples in use.

Have you ever known me leave you or any one in the lurch ?

Phoebe Junior Margaret Oliphant, ‎Elizabeth Langland · 2002

Interestingly (or not), on the same page, Mr May says:

Have you ever found me to fail you, Cotsdean?

 

[Phaedrus]

I didn't get the job. They know me need to study more English.

 

[emsr2d2]

Where did you find those sentences? I'm asking you the same question that 5jj asked me the other day.

I found them in my brain! They're what I would say. If I'd found them somewhere else, I'd have quoted the source.

If "Have you ever known me leave you in the lurch?" and "Have you ever known me to fail you?" are found on the same page of a book, haven't we just demonstrated that (for once) Ho Limin is right - "to" is optional? Some of us might be unhappy with its omission and some are happy with either version. I don't think anyone has said they are unhappy with its inclusion.
Over the last couple of days, we have clearly indicated to learners that, sometimes, there is no universal agreement on certain aspects of English. I think we would all do well to remember that.

 

[Phaedrus]

I found them in my brain! They're what I would say. If I'd found them somewhere else, I'd have quoted the source.

I knew that, of course, just as 5jj surely did when he harassingly asked me the same question in the tandem thread, whereupon I told him basically the same thing in response. (I love it that you used an exclamation point.) All of us do this, especially those of us who moderate grammar forums! However, ANY native speaker has the right to create his or her own examples to make a grammatical point about a construction under discussion and needn’t apologize in the least for doing so. Even a nonnative grammar-textbook author like Ho Lemin has the right to have a go at it, unfortunate though some of his published attempts have proven to be.

 

[PaulMatthews]

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?

I thought you might like a straightforward answer to your question!

Yes: it's fine. In simple terms "to" is indeed optional.

The verb "know" typically takes a to-infinitival, but it can also take a bare infinitival.