What are the circumstances

[Ador]

What are the circumstances that lead to you being here?

Why the word “being” is used here? Does it mean “existing”? Can I write it like this “What are the circumstances that lead to you be here?”

 

[emsr2d2]

No, you can't.

 

[jutfrank]

After a preposition, you must use an -ing form.

Since to is a preposition here, the infinitive form be is incorrect. You must use being.

 

[Ador]

After a preposition, you must use an -ing form.

Since to is a preposition here, the infinitive form be is incorrect. You must use being.

Can I say it like this "What are the circumstances that lead you to be here?" Does it give the same meaning?

 

[emsr2d2]

You actually quoted the words "After a preposition, you must use an -ing form". On that basis, do you think you can use "... lead you to be here"?

 

[jutfrank]

Posts #2 and #3 have already answered very clearly.

 

[TheParser]

Can I say it like this "What are the circumstances that lead you to be here?"

NOT A TEACHER


Hi,

I found your question fascinating

You have already received some answers from teachers.

Let's hope that other teachers contribute their thoughts, too.

As a non-teacher, I shall keep my opinion to myself.

 

[Tarheel]

What are the circumstances that lead to you being here?

Why is the word “being” [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] used here? Does it mean “existing”? Can I write it like this “What are the circumstances that led to you be here?”

I know it can be confusing, but the past tense of lead is led, not lead.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to say. "Why are you here?"

 

[jutfrank]

Thanks to Tarheel's answer in post #9, I've just realised I misunderstood post #4 and I now think I see what the point of TheParser's post #7 was.

I think your question in post #4 is whether the following sentence is correct:

What are the circumstances that led you to be here?

Is that right, Ador?

 

[Ador]

Thanks to Tarheel's answer in post #9, I've just realised I misunderstood post #4 and I now think I see what the point of TheParser's post #7 was.

I think your question in post #4 is whether the following sentence is correct:

What are the circumstances that led you to be here?

Is that right, Ador?

So I can say that "What are the circumstances that led your being here?" and "What are the circumstances that led you to be here?" Both are same?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm going to try to clear up this messy thread.

a) What were the circumstances that led to you being here?
b) What were the circumstances that led you to be here?

1) These are both correctly constructed but they don't necessarily have the same meaning.
2) In a), to is a preposition whereas in b) to is not a preposition—it's part of the infinitive to be.
3) Any difference in meaning would come from the different patterns (see below for my way of noting those patterns) that the two sentences use.

a) lead to something
b) lead somebody to do something

In both patterns, the 'something' part is a result of a cause. In these sentences, the result is that you are now here and the cause is the circumstances. A grammatical difference between a) and b) is that in a) the verb lead is intransitive and in b) the verb is transitive. The semantic difference is the way that the result is conceived.

In pattern a), since it follows the preposition to, the result is conceived as a place. That is, the notion of causality is seen as geographical, going from one point to another to another, and so on. In this case, one state of affairs (the circumstances) goes to another state of affairs (the situation of you being here).

In b), the result is an action. Since the pattern uses a to-infintive verb, the result of the cause is some kind of action performed by the 'somebody'. However, the difficulty here is that since the to-infinitive verb in this sentence is a state verb and not an action verb, this is really not very clear. Still, I think if there were a difference in meaning, it would come from this idea of there being at the very least a hint of agency.

If I've confused the matter even more than before, I apologise!

 

[Alexey86]

a) What were the circumstances that led to you being here?

This is confusing for me. I would say to your being here. The circumstances led to (what? ->) your being here. Does it make sense?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I know it can be confusing, but the past tense of lead is led, not lead.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to say. "Why are you here?"

You beat me to it twice.

 

[jutfrank]

This is confusing for me. I would say to your being here. The circumstances led to (what? ->) your being here. Does it make sense?

Yes, it does. You can think of those two forms in much the same way. I personally don't care much for using a possessive there, though. I don't see what bringing a sense of possession really adds.

 

[Alexey86]

Yes, it does. You can think of those two forms in much the same way. I personally don't care much for using a possessive there, though. I don't see what bringing a sense of possession really adds.

I think if we add the direct object, it will make a difference:

a) What were the circumstances that led you to (who? ->) Mr. Johnson (doing what? ->) living on the second floor?
b) What were the circumstances that led you to (what? ->) Mr. Johnson's living on the second floor?

In this case the possessive form sounds senseless to me, or at least very odd. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[jutfrank]

I think if we add the direct object, it will make a difference:

a) What were the circumstances that led you to (who? ->) Mr. Johnson (doing what? ->) living on the second floor?
b) What were the circumstances that led you to (what? ->) Mr. Johnson's living on the second floor?

In this case the possessive form sounds senseless to me, or at least very odd. Maybe I'm missing something.

Neither of those make sense because you and Mr. Johnson conflict.

 

[jutfrank]

Those who argue for it say that the -ing form is a gerund, that part of the verb that functions as a noun. If it's functioning as a noun, then only a possessive form is correct before it.

I'm aware of the argument but I don't buy it. In fact, it strikes me as rather misguided, and quite ignorant of the semantics. Like I said, bringing a sense of possession doesn't seem to add anything of use to the meaning.

 

[TheParser]

I don't see what bringing a sense of possession really adds.

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Jutfrank:

1. I think it's accurate to say that most American native speakers would agree with you.

2. I do believe, however, that a few (older?) people try their best to maintain the distinction, at least on formal occasions.

3. I have made up the following dialog(ue) based on an opinion expressed in one of my favorite grammar books.

*****

The president of Jupiter: Welcome, members of the media. I am here to answer your questions.

Reporter A: Ma'am, do you mind if I ask you a question about your husband's health?

The president: Of course, not. I absolutely do not mind your asking me any question at any time. I know you to be a journalist of the highest integrity. [The "asking" is being emphasized.]

Reporter B: Ma'am, do you mind if I ask you a question about your scheduled trip to Mars next month?

The president: Yes, I do mind. I very much mind you (of all people!) asking me any question. What a nerve! Do you think that I have forgotten the defamatory article you wrote about my family last month? [The person who is doing the asking is being emphasized.]


Source: Homer C. House and Susan Emolyn Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (1931 and 1950), page 319.

 

[Alexey86]

Neither of those make sense because you and Mr. Johnson conflict.

Why? Suppose I come to someone, and he asks: "What are you doing here?" - "Some circumstances have led me to you."
Another example: "The chain of evidence led the detective to Mr. Johnson living on the second floor."

 

[jutfrank]

Why? Suppose I come to someone, and he asks: "What are you doing here?" - "Some circumstances have led me to you."

That's fine. If the meaning of lead is something like 'take from point A to point B', then you is clearly point B. (I'm going to call point B the 'destination'.)

Another example: "The chain of evidence led the detective to Mr. Johnson living on the second floor."

This is not. What exactly do you want the destination to be? Mr Johnson or Mr Johnson living on the second floor? The former makes good sense because we often use a person as the destination, though if that is the intention, you ought to either end the sentence or place a comma immediately after the destination. The latter seems to intend the destination as a proposition, ('Mr Johnson lives on the second floor'), (or rather, the truth value of a proposition), which doesn't really work because we don't normally use propositions as destinations. It would be much better to rephrase the thought to include the proposition stated clearly—for example, The evidence led the detective to believe that Mr Johnson lives on the second floor or The evidence led the detective to discovering that Mr Johnson lives on the second floor, or something like that, where the destination is a state of knowledge rather than the truth value of a proposition.

Also, think about the wider context of the utterance. When talking about detective work, we imagine that the evidence that you're talking about consists of a set of clues that leads like a trail to the identity of the accused person. I think most people reading this sentence would be thinking that the detective has been looking for somebody, that person being Mr Johnson, who just happens to live on the second floor. With the proposition as destination, you'd have to read it that the detective has been trying to solve specifically where Mr Johnson lives.