to make them work in mines

[navi tasan]

1) His car was stolen to use in a bank heist.
2) His car was stolen to use it in a bank heist.
3) His car was stolen to be used in a bank heist.

4) They were kidnapped to work in mines.
5) They were kidnapped to make them work in mines.
6) They were kidnapped to be made to work in mines.

Which of the above sentences are correct?

#1 doesn't look correct to me, but #4 does. That's why I included all the examples.

I think in #4 'work' is intransitive. It can't be replaced by a verb like 'exploit'. In #1 'use' is transitive. Hence the difference. That's my theory, but I might be wrong about everything.

 

[emsr2d2]

#1 doesn't correct to me, but #4 does.

Well, I'm sure you'll agree that that sentence isn't correct. Before we continue, use the Edit facility to fix that error.

 

[Tarheel]

People don't normally put everything in one sentence. (See below.)

His car was stolen. It was used in a bank robbery.

 

[5jj]

They frequently do. None of navi's sentences is particularly long or complex.

 

[emsr2d2]

People don't normally put everything in one sentence. (See below.)

His car was stolen. It was used in a bank robbery.

Did you notice that post #2 included "Before we continue ..."? We want members to fix their errors before we starting given responses.

 

[Tarheel]

Did you notice that post #2 included "Before we continue ..."? We want members to fix their errors before we starting given responses.

I'm tempted to say something, but this time I'll restrain myself.

 

[jutfrank]

The intial clause of all of six sentences is in the passive voice, which is causing problems when interpreting the agent/subject of the subsequent infintival clause. There should really be a match beween the subjects of each clause. If there isn't, you're placing unfair demands on the listener.

#3 and #6 are good. #1 and #4 are arguably grammatical but both poor, in my opinion, though I agree that #4 is better. #2 and #5 are wrong.

#4 sounds better than #1 because unlike #1 the overt subject of the first clause is the same as the covert subject of the infintival. The same goes for #3 and #6, which are also consistently passive in both clauses. #5 is so bad for precisely the opposite reason; even if them is supposed to refer to a third party and not to those who were kidnapped, it's still horrible. #2 is wrong even with the object it attempting to refer to the subject His car. I don't believe this kind of subject-object co-reference could ever work.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much, especially Emsr2d2,

I hadn't been back since I made my post. Busy day. Sorry about the mistake.

A special 'thank you' to Jutfrank, for his detailed response,