English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top


If man continues to scathe all of Earth and its seas, then this isn’t the world I thought it to be

make sense? Or should I just replace the 'to' with 'would'?

share|improve this question
Yes, makes sense and is grammatical. Its literary style or suitability otherwise may be a different matter, though. Replacing with would gives a different meaning as you know -- so choice depends on what you meant to say. Instead you could consider was in place of to be. – Kris Dec 7 '13 at 6:48
Maybe the disagreement between the two men had not been as resolved as Chelsea had thought it to be. (Victoria Morris); Eventually Orwell came to understand that this was not the practical policy he had at first thought it to be. (Lionel Trilling); – Kris Dec 7 '13 at 6:52
Kris please post it as an answer. – Preetie Sekhon Dec 7 '13 at 6:56

I completely agree with Kris.

It is grammatical and comprehensible.

I thought it to be translates into I thought it is/was.

Would has an element of prediction or hope which is not your intention I presume.

To is more assertive and definitely well suited.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.