Timeline for Time to infinitive or time for gerund
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2020 at 11:21 | vote | accept | Fadli Sheikh | ||
| May 21, 2020 at 9:51 | comment | added | Shoe | Yes, that's weird, in more ways than one. In general, the infinitive form will be the best choice in a very large majority of cases. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 9:47 | comment | added | Fadli Sheikh | It's time to be/for being beaten up, guys. In the above sentence, it is just too weird to use for being, right? | |
| May 21, 2020 at 9:41 | comment | added | Shoe | @Fadli Sheikh. The passive construction being + past participle exists. For example: There is a strong argument for being vaccinated. But since vaccinate is a 'punctual' verb (unlike eat which is 'durative'), the to infinitive is much more likely in the it's time to... expression: It's time to be vaccinated. (? It's time for being vaccinated.) | |
| May 21, 2020 at 8:01 | comment | added | Fadli Sheikh | one more thing. Does the construction for being past participle exist in this case? | |
| May 21, 2020 at 8:00 | comment | added | Fadli Sheikh | Got it. Thanks shoe. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 7:39 | comment | added | Shoe | There is no black and white rule here. A parent could say: OK kids, it's time for eating! But much more likely is It's time to eat! | |
| May 21, 2020 at 7:36 | comment | added | Fadli Sheikh | So, we can use time+gerund only for duration (tho using to infinitive is better even in this case), right? | |
| May 21, 2020 at 7:24 | history | answered | Shoe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |