[Grammar] to+verb infinitive

[egerol1]

Hello friends,

I have a question for you.After the preposition "to" if a verb comes that verb will be in infinitive.

But here are some examples I want to show you that don't obey to this rule.

1)Navajo code talkers were very skilled and were essential to winning WW2.

2)Confine your efforts to finishing the book

3)Let me see what to looking for

In these sentences the verb get -ing after "to".Why is that so?Shouldn't it be an infinitive verb?

 

[birdeen's call]

In 1) and 2) the -ing form is correct. These structures require nouns after "to", so we use the gerund -- a verb form that works like a noun.

I don't recognize the grammatical structure of 3). Perhaps someone else does.

 

[bhaisahab]

In 1) and 2) the -ing form is correct. These structures require nouns after "to", so we use the gerund -- a verb form that works like a noun.

I don't recognize the grammatical structure of 3). Perhaps someone else does.

:up: #3 is incorrect.

 

[egerol1]

I don't understand why 1 and 2 is correct? Can you expalin it with examples please?

 

[5jj]

You gave two examples yourself.

Some verbs are followed by a bare infinitive: I can see her.

Some verbs are followed by a to-infinitive: I want to see her.

Some verbs are followed by a gerund: I enjoy seeing her.

Some verbs are followed by a preposition and a gerund:

I count on seeing her.
I soon got over seeing her for the last time
I look forward to seeing her.

 

[egerol1]

What I don't understand is that the verb "win" can come in infinitive after the preposition "to".
Navajo code talkers were very skilled and were essential to winning WW2.

Navajo code talkers were very skilled and were essential to win WW2.

What is the difference between the two?

 

[birdeen's call]

I find the second one incorrect. Perhaps others will disagree.

Take a look at the following sentences.

The revelation of such information could jeopardize sensitive investigations essential to the nation's security[...]
(Freedom under Thatcher: civil liberties in modern Britain. Gearty, C A and Ewing, K D)

The oil has seeped into areas that are essential to underwater life[...]
Associated Press

[...]the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty[...]
The Federalist, on the new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay

As you see, the pattern is

subject + be + essential to + noun phrase.

A gerund may constitute a noun phrase. A bare infinitive cannot.

 

[5jj]

I find the second one incorrect. Perhaps others will disagree.

We can say, "(For us) to win the war, it is/was essential to use Navajo code talkers.

Although I am not happy with "Navajo code talkers were very skilled and were essential to win WW2", I think it is possible.

 

[TheParser]

Hello friends,



3)Let me see what to looking for


***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Egerol:


(1) Your third sentence really interests me.

(a) I like to analyze sentences of that kind.

(2) All the great posters have done a super job in explaining the use

of the gerund.

(3) They all agree that No. 3 is not acceptable.

(4) It should be:

"Let me see what to look for."

(a) Why? Well, I think (only "think") that maybe it is a shorter way

to say:

(You) let me see what [I/we need] to look for.

(i) In this sentence, I think that "what" = "that which."

(ii) So the sentence is:

You let me see that (which we need to look for).

In other words:

You let me see that (we need to look for which). OF COURSE,

you may NOT say that last sentence. It is only for

analysis (it shows that "which" is the object of the preposition

"for").


Sincerely,


James

 

[Pokemon]

I have a question for you.After the preposition "to" if a verb comes that verb will be in infinitive.

An infinitive doesn't come after a preposition. It comes after the particle 'to'. After a preposition comes a noun or a gerund.

I used to get up early. (to - particle)
I'm used to getting up early. (to- preposition)

 

[Tdol]

I agree with Pokemon, though it can be hard for learners to know sometimes whether it's a particle or a preposition

 

[5jj]

I agree with Pokemon, though it can be hard for learners to know sometimes whether it's a particle or a preposition

Indeed.

The term 'particle' is in any case a compromise between the view that the 'to' is part of the infinitive and the view that it is a preposition. The names of parts of speech are only labels we use in attempt to simplify talking about language.

 

[Pokemon]

Well, they are labels, yes. But so is any word. Any word is a label, or a sign. And as a sign it denotes something. There's a link between its form and its content. If the speaker doesn't care what form he uses, there's a danger his co-speaker may misunderstand him. A preposition has meaning, grammatical or lexical, or both. The particle 'to' is a purely structural unit. It's just a formal indicator of the infinitive.

As for 'used to do vs. be used to doing' and other situations where infinitives compete with gerunds (refuse to do vs. reject doing, etc), that is something students simply have to memorize. I don't think there's any way of explaining it.

 

[5jj]

A preposition has meaning, grammatical or lexical, or both. The particle 'to' is a purely structural unit. It's just a formal indicator of the infinitive.

That's one opinion, admittedly one that is widely held. There are other ideas.

It is interesting to note how many writers consider 'to' to be part of the verbs 'have to', 'used to' and 'be used to', but part of the infinitive in most other occurrences. The current popularity of the chatlish 'wanna' and 'gotta' suggests that for many people we now have a 'want/got to + do' division rather than a want/got + to do' one.

 

[Pokemon]

That's one opinion, admittedly one that is widely held. There are other ideas.

It is interesting to note how many writers consider 'to' to be part of the verbs 'have to', 'used to' and 'be used to', but part of the infinitive in most other occurrences. The current popularity of the chatlish 'wanna' and 'gotta' suggests that for many people we now have a 'want/got to + do' division rather than a want/got + to do' one.

Actually that is a different topic. We were discussing whether 'to' is a preposition or a particle. Now you raise the question whether 'to' belongs to the infinitive that follows it or to the verb that precedes it. In my opinion, in 'used to' we observe a merging process which has already resulted in a phonetic phenomenon called regressive assimilation ('d' and even 'z' devoiced under the influence of 't'). As for 'have to', 'ought to', 'be to', nobody else except ESL teachers consider them as one unit, probably, because they've been trying to drill into their students' minds to use 'to' after these modals for so long that came to believe in it themselves.

 

[5jj]

Actually that is a different topic.

Quite. Both topics are interesting, but I think we had better start a separate thread if we are going to discuss it any more. We are rather highjacking this thread.