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

Is it appropriate to omit to after ought?

I ought to be disciplined for my insolence.


I ought be disciplined for my insolence.

Is it okay to omit the to?

share|improve this question
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. – user11550 Nov 9 '11 at 17:05
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 E. Эллен May 24 '12 at 9:53
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

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

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


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