To

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allen165

Key Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Switzerland
"When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is to say it memorably."

Is "to" necessary? I don't think it is.

Thanks.
 

kfredson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Member Type
Academic
"When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is to say it memorably."

Is "to" necessary? I don't think it is.

Thanks.

You certainly come up with interesting sentences!

I do agree that "to" is unnecessary here. What can he do? He can say it memorably. "To" is, to my mind, grammatically incorrect. Would anyone other than a copy editor or English teacher notice? Probably not.

Thanks for giving us challenging sentences to think through.
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is to say it memorably.

The nominal bare infinitive clause (without to) is severely limited in its function. It may be the subject complement or (rarely) subject in a pseudo-cleft sentence.
What we can do is (to) say it memorably.
Say it memorably is what we can do.

It may also be the subject or subject complement of a variant of the pseudo-cleft sentence, where a noun-phrase of general reference replaces 'what':

When a man has nothing to say, [STRIKE]the worst thing[/STRIKE]WHAT he can do is (to) say it memorably.
When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is (to) say it memorably.

The to of the infinitive is obligatorily absent when the infinitive clause is subject in these constructions, but it is optionally present when the clause is subject complement.

When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is to say it memorably. :tick:
When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is say it memorably. :tick:

The bare infinitive requires the substitute 'do' in the other subordinate clause.
All he wants is to say it memorably.
All he wants to do is (to) say it memorably.

"To" is, to my mind, grammatically incorrect..
No it is not.
BTW, "grammatically incorrect" sounds prescriptive. The aim of modern linguistics is to be descriptive. "Syntactically ill-formed" is what descriptivists say.

Thanks for giving us challenging sentences to think through.

Challenging for the uninformed.
 
Last edited:

tedtmc

Key Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Malaysia
Current Location
Malaysia
"When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is to say it memorably."

IMO, 'to' is optional but it does make the saying sound better.

The second clause could also be phrased : the worse thing he can do is saying it memorably.

not a teacher
 

Allen165

Key Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Switzerland
Just so you know, the quote stems from Calvin Trillin.
 

Allen165

Key Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Switzerland
The nominal bare infinitive clause (without to) is severely limited in its function. It may be the subject complement or (rarely) subject in a pseudo-cleft sentence.
What we can do is (to) say it memorably.
Say it memorably is what we can do.

It may also be the subject or subject complement of a variant of the pseudo-cleft sentence, where a noun-phrase of general reference replaces 'what':

When a man has nothing to say, [STRIKE]the worst thing[/STRIKE]WHAT he can do is (to) say it memorably.
When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is (to) say it memorably.

The to of the infinitive is obligatorily absent when the infinitive clause is subject in these constructions, but it is optionally present when the clause is subject complement.



The bare infinitive requires the substitute 'do' in the other subordinate clause.
All he wants is to say it memorably.
All he wants to do is (to) say it memorably.


No it is not.
BTW, "grammatically incorrect" sounds prescriptive. The aim of modern linguistics is to be descriptive. "Syntactically ill-formed" is what descriptivists say.



Challenging for the uninformed.


While I appreciate your feedback, I think there's no need for you to disparage other posters.
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
I think there is no need for you to read things into my message. :up:
 

sarat_106

Key Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Oriya
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
Just so you know, the quote stems from Calvin Trillin.



Yes, with 'to' the quote sounds better, though both are possible. There are structures where to-infinitive and the bare infinitive are both possible and in particular, expressions with do or did, such as what I've done or all I do can follow either pattern.
  • I hate shopping so what I've done is (to) order a new computer over the Internet.
  • All I do is (to) suggest that she should pay adequate attention to him.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
No it is not.
BTW, "grammatically incorrect" sounds prescriptive. The aim of modern linguistics is to be descriptive. "Syntactically ill-formed" is what descriptivists say.

There's nothing contradictory about being a descriptivist and saying that something is grammatically incorrect.
I'm trying to think of an example of something that's grammatically incorrect but not syntactically ill-formed, or vice versa. Can you help?
 

kfredson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Member Type
Academic
The nominal bare infinitive clause (without to) is severely limited in its function. It may be the subject complement or (rarely) subject in a pseudo-cleft sentence.
What we can do is (to) say it memorably.
Say it memorably is what we can do.

It may also be the subject or subject complement of a variant of the pseudo-cleft sentence, where a noun-phrase of general reference replaces 'what':

When a man has nothing to say, [STRIKE]the worst thing[/STRIKE]WHAT he can do is (to) say it memorably.
When a man has nothing to say, the worst thing he can do is (to) say it memorably.

The to of the infinitive is obligatorily absent when the infinitive clause is subject in these constructions, but it is optionally present when the clause is subject complement.



The bare infinitive requires the substitute 'do' in the other subordinate clause.
All he wants is to say it memorably.
All he wants to do is (to) say it memorably.


No it is not.
BTW, "grammatically incorrect" sounds prescriptive. The aim of modern linguistics is to be descriptive. "Syntactically ill-formed" is what descriptivists say.



Challenging for the uninformed.


And I am uniformed about so many things! I always appreciate it when you enlighten me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top