Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 7 down vote favorite

Is it appropriate to omit to after ought?

I ought to be disciplined for my insolence.

Vs.

I ought be disciplined for my insolence.

Is it okay to omit the to?

share|improve this question
1  
I'm intrigued that negation affects my sense of how acceptable it is to omit "to". Although it's less common, I have no problem at all with You ought not do that. But, for example, You ought do that (which is far less common) sounds decidedly odd to me. – FumbleFingers Nov 9 '11 at 14:40
@FumbleFingers It does sound better when negative. I find that interesting. – Mahnax Nov 9 '11 at 17:05
1  
It sounds better because ought is a semantic modal auxiliary and omission of the to (i.e, treating the infinitive complement as a modal would and omitting to) is a negative polarity phenomenon, like the use of need and dare as modals: - *I need go ~ I need not go. (modal) - I need to go ~ I don't need to go. (non-modal) – John Lawler Nov 30 '11 at 20:04
More on Negative Polarity Items and Negation – John Lawler Nov 30 '11 at 20:10
Related: Infinitives with “ought not” – Matt Эллен May 24 '12 at 9:53

3 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

It's not typical.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry for ought has the following usage note:

Unlike other auxiliary verbs, ought usually takes to with its accompanying verb: We ought to go. Sometimes the accompanying verb is dropped if the meaning is clear: Should we begin soon? Yes, we ought to. In questions and negative sentences, especially those with contractions, to is also sometimes omitted: Oughtn't we be going soon? This omission of to, however, is not common in written English.

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

The omission of to is more frequent in American English. Quirk & al. (A Grammar of Contemporary English) say:

Ought regularly has the to-infinitive, but AmE occasionally has the bare infinitive in negative sentences and in questions (although should is commoner in both cases):
- You oughtn't smoke so much.
- Ought you smoke so much?

share|improve this answer
I must admit my first thought was those examples look archaic, rather than American. But some Americans are happy to omit "to be" in "my car needs washed", so perhaps that's a related [non-]usage. – FumbleFingers Jul 21 '12 at 3:46
up vote 1 down vote

British English requires the to-infinitive. (I didn't know until reading the above comments that American English allowed its omission.)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.