to be alert to something =? to be alert to do something

[JACEK1]

Hello everybody!

Parents should be alert to sudden changes in children's behaviour. (This sentence was taken from Cambridge Dictionaries Online).

In the sentence above, there is the adjective "alert", commonly used. TO BE ALERT TO SOMETHING.

In order not to gethurt while working a lathe, an individual should be alert to avoid wearingloose clothes. (The sentence was made up by me).

In my opinion, it may be re-written as: In order not to get hurt while working a lathe, an individual should be alert in order to avoid wearing loose clothes.

In this sentence, however, "in order to" is hidden. As far as I am concerned, this structure is not frequently used. I may be wrong in both the cases. TO BE ALERT IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING.

Do you find my conclusions acceptable?

Thank you.

Operator's manual says not to wear loose clothes while operating a lathe.

 

[emsr2d2]

No. In the sentence about children's behaviour, it means that parents should make sure that they notice/make sure that they are aware of any change in children's behaviour.
A potential sentence for your second scenario would be "A lathe user should be alert to the dangers of wearing loose clothing".

 

[JACEK1]

I have no right and I don't want to have my last word but this time I know that this structure is 100 % correct. Please consider the following sentence:

In order to be a role model for their children, a husband must be alert to support his family financially.

It is said that the adjective "alert" may be followed by the infinitive structure.

 

[JACEK1]

I am not a native speaker of English but all you have to do is take a look at other forums that deal with English grammar.

 

[JACEK1]

I must admit this structure is rare.

 

[Jaskin]

Hi,
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker.

Language in the large is conventional, that means using rare structures makes that expression obscure. I did some search for 'be alert to' + verb in COCA and BNC.
You can follow the links and have a look for yourself. After closer look there are 1-2 examples that follow the structure you talking about.
BNC
[..] sit down at your tent doors and be alert to take up your arms.
[..] you need to be alert to find a good bargain
COCA
The disability community needs to be alert to make sure that Congress doesn't significantly weaken or repeal the bill.

Cheers.

 

[Raymott]

I am not a native speaker of English but all you have to do is take a look at other forums that deal with English grammar.

So why do you come here? And how would looking at forum B prove that something said in forum A is wrong?
If I saw this sentence on an exam paper, "In order to be a role model for their children, a husband must be alert to support his family financially", I'd correct it and mark it down.

 

[Raymott]

[..] sit down at your tent doors and be alert to take up your arms.
[..] [STRIKE]you need to be alert to find a good bargain[/STRIKE]
COCA
[STRIKE]The disability community needs to be alert to make sure that Congress doesn't significantly weaken or repeal the bill.[/STRIKE]

Only the first shares the structure under discussion.

 

[Jaskin]

Hi,
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker.

I'm sorry but I really don't see why the other two examples don't share the structure.
Could you please explain.

Cheers.​

​

 

[Raymott]

The ones I've crossed out are good normal uses of "to be alert". The one I've left isn't; it shares the structure of the incorrect index sentence: "In order to be a role model for their children, a husband must be alert to support his family financially."

Proper uses:
There are many things that you need to be alert for. You need to be alert if you're a postman on a bicycle and you want to avoid dogbites. [Not alert -> bitten]. In the same way, you need to be alert to snatch up a bargain (or other people will get it before you do). You need to be alert to prevent Congress from doing the wrong thing. These are all of the same sort. If you're not alert, you will miss something to your detriment or the detriment of someone else.

However:
The sentence in contention is "In order to be a role model for their children, a husband must be alert to support his family financially."
This is saying that, in order to support his family, a husband must be alert - that if the husband isn't alert, his family will suffer. This is not correct usage in the type of English that I and others here speak. Supporting a family and being alert have no connection.

The other sentence is marginally more acceptable "to be alert to take up arms". It probably means "to be ready to take up arms". But it's not a grammatical joining of these concepts. If you are supposed to "be on the alert to take up your arms at short notice", that is a normal use of the term. It's the semantics of 'being alert; and 'taking up arms hurriedly' that joins the concepts in the original, not a correct grammatical structure that does it. Maybe that's a quibble and I should have crossed it out too, leaving no similar examples.
"... should be alert in order to avoid wearing loose clothes." is also wrong. You don't need to be in a constant state of alertness when you get dressed every morning. All you need to do is choose proper clothing.
You do need to be alert to the possibility of inury if loose clothes are worn. This is a second legitimate meaning. It means being knowledgable or cluey about something. You need to be alert to the road rules if you going to drive.
1."to be alert" means "to be wide awake and attentive"; 2. "to be alert to" can mean "to be aware of, knowledgeable of".

Maybe someone else can explain it better. The index sentence is just not English usage.

 

[JACEK1]

I stand corrected, Raymott. Nobody knows everything. The same rule applies to me. If I did not find this forum helpful, I would not use it.

 

[Raymott]

I stand corrected, Raymott. Nobody knows everything. The same rule applies to me. If I did not find this forum helpful, I would not use it.

That's good to hear. I guess you won't being using "this time I know that this structure is 100 % correct" again any time soon. ;-)
- especially when you're disagreeing with a moderator (even though they are not immune to error either).

 

[JACEK1]

I was too sure of myself all the more because I thought such structures were correct and acceptable to you. As I said at the beginning of the thread, it was an exception to the rule. As a rule, I don't say "I know that XXXXXX is 100 % correct". By the way, is using "Disagree" option forbidden? You know. I thought to myself. Since I disagree about the structure in question, I am entitled to press "Disagree" option and express my opinion. As far as the structure being discussed is concerned, could you shed some more light on it?

Thank you.

I did not mean any offence.

 

[Rover_KE]

You may click 'Disagree' on any post. It is expected that you will follow up with a post explaining the reasons for your disagreement (as you did in this instance).


`

 

[JACEK1]

I see.

 

[Raymott]

As far as the structure being discussed is concerned, could you shed some more light on it?

Simply put, "to be alert to do something" is not a special structure. It's just a sequence of words with their normal meaning.
Compare: 1. "You need to be awake to eat breakfast". "to be awake to do something" is not a unit. The sentence simply means that to eat breakfast, you have to be awake. There's nothing to be understood in that phrase.
2. "You need to be clever to go to university." "to be clever to do something" is not an entity that you need to understand. Nor is "to be clever to go somewhere" or "to be clever to".