Timeline for Can preposition "to" be omitted in this case
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 4, 2019 at 21:29 | comment | added | Lambie | @vectory I really do not think you know what you are talking about. There is no translation argument. backtranslation does not prove anything about L1. Sorry, but I have had enough. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 21:28 | comment | added | vectory | @Lambie, note the translation argument works against your own inner-english transpositions, likewise. My argument works analoguously, nevertheless, especially if I should have been wrong to say "not acceptable", instead of "hardly acceptable" or "unusual", since I already said all the translations worked. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 21:08 | comment | added | Lambie | @vectory You start in one and go to the other. If the first is faulty, the second should also be faulty. That's how it's done. But the L2 doesn't reveal L1., | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:55 | comment | added | vectory | @Lambie, but translation can provide a clue which works in the source language | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:48 | comment | added | Lambie | @vectory Translation cannot prove grammaticality of the source language. (I am a translator.) | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:44 | comment | added | vectory | For reference, this would be "Er liefert Hinweise, zu welcher Kategorie er gehört", which is kind of OK. But, there's the synonyms "zu X gehören" and "X angehören", with the later inseperable. Now the funky bit is, that "zu" seems to serve double duty as well, because it's not acceptable to say "Er liefert Hinweise, welcher Kategory er angehört", perhaps because "welcher" is polysemous and commands a different interpretation when following a noun. The same argument works analoguously for English. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:39 | comment | added | Lambie | Yes, it does show there is no double duty. provide has a direct object (clues) and the relative clause after the preposition to is standard: to which, for which, of which etc. relative clauses are preceded by nouns. Here, the noun is clues. The second one is an outright English mistake. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 20:33 | comment | added | vectory | @Lambie, this doesn't clarify whether there's any "double duty". While I'd concure with you, I'd add that "provide ... to ..." usually subordinates the receiver of the provision, which is the whole reason for all ya'll general confusion. As a German, I can confirm that all proposed variants translate rather naturally, but the prefered variant would use a preposition to introduce the subordinate clause. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 16:51 | comment | added | Lambie | In any event, this is not clues to [some thing]. As in: clues to the mystery or clues to the puzzle. 'The to which introduces a relative clause; the category to which something belongs. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 16:47 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @Lambie You've changed the interrogative to a relative clause modifying the word category. That isn't a viable parse of the OP's sentence where category occurs after the interrogative phrase to which. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 15:20 | comment | added | Lambie | belong to a category: Which category do you belong to? [right] To which category do you belong? [right] Now, let's change clues + to to clues + on or about: Aston Martin’s IPO will provide further clues on or about the category to which ultra-expensive carmakers really belong. clues to, on or about*. Your transformations are incorrect. | |
| Nov 4, 2019 at 5:22 | vote | accept | Robby zhu | ||
| Nov 3, 2019 at 23:17 | comment | added | Araucaria - Him | @Lambie That's hyperbole. The economist is pretty good, but by nomeans infallible. They used to give Geoff Pullum ample opportunity to rib them in the THES. BillJ is right here, and you and the economist are wrong. If you think the to there has been pied-piped, try moving it back to the end of the sentence. You'll note the result is ungrammatical. Why did they end up in this mess? The dumbass policy of not ending a sentence with a preposition. It's always that that gets them, or avoiding "split infinitives". | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 18:21 | answer | added | David | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 18:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 8, 2019 at 3:05 | |||||
| Nov 3, 2019 at 17:57 | answer | added | Lambie | timeline score: -1 | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 17:03 | comment | added | Lambie | Please do not try and second guess The Economist. There is no better English-language news magazine in the world even though it is too conservative for my taste. It has the best writers and editors in the entire English-speaking world. | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 16:57 | history | edited | tchrist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 3, 2019 at 16:36 | answer | added | Araucaria - Him | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 9:49 | comment | added | BillJ | It's an error: "which category ultra-expensive carmakers really belong to" is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question) where the meaning is "Aston Martin’s IPO will provide further clues to the answer to the question 'Which category do ultra-expensive carmakers really belong to?'" | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 3:09 | comment | added | Robby zhu | No,I think they are different. In this case, "to" goes with "clues",as in "clues to".So there should be an additional "to" before "which" or after "belong" | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 3:06 | history | edited | Robby zhu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 3, 2019 at 2:59 | history | undeleted | Robby zhu | ||
| Nov 3, 2019 at 2:58 | history | deleted | Robby zhu | via Vote | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 2:57 | comment | added | Laurel♦ | Similar: english.stackexchange.com/q/55126/191178 | |
| Nov 3, 2019 at 2:51 | history | asked | Robby zhu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |