Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Jun 21, 2013 at 22:22 comment added Cerberus - Reinstate Monica @EdwinAshworth: "Grossly", really? Why? The question didn't seem to ask for linguistic theories. Nor did it ask about the differences between kinds of to + inf. or kinds of gerunds. Wasn't the way I explained it appropriate for the way the question was phrased? Is anything I said factually incorrect or inconsistent? If so, you are welcome to edit my answer.
Jun 21, 2013 at 21:49 comment added Edwin Ashworth Your statements 'There are also many verbs that only take one or the other. Lastly, there are cases where the two have different meanings:' grossly over-simplify the different catenative (see at wordwizard.com/phpbb3/… , for example) and non-catenative (as at the link above) verb + en-form and verb + ing-form structures.
Jun 21, 2013 at 19:45 comment added Cerberus - Reinstate Monica @EdwinAshworth: So what are you arguing here? What do you want me to do or say?
Jun 21, 2013 at 19:29 comment added Edwin Ashworth I came in order to see your father is not an example of catenation. I tried to see your father is. "It is most important to distinguish between a real catenative verb, such as decide I decided to work. and a normal verb followed by an infinitive of purpose (French: pour)" ( en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_catenative_verbs )
Jun 20, 2013 at 23:30 comment added Cerberus - Reinstate Monica @EdwinAshworth: Yes, you could say that (although they have the same origin, and they cannot always be distinguished).
Jun 20, 2013 at 19:15 comment added Edwin Ashworth In stop to look, to is not the infinitive-marker - it is the to that is the equivalent of the French 'pour', 'in order to'. Compare I have come to see your father and contrast I have come to see the complexities involved in these structures.
Jun 20, 2013 at 1:41 history answered Cerberus - Reinstate Monica CC BY-SA 3.0