13

Q.1. This is a sentence by John Steinbeck. I don’t understand the verb construction of the preposition ‘to’ followed by a gerund instead of by an infinitive. What’s the explanation?

Evening of a hot day started the little wind to moving among the leaves. The shade climbed up the hills toward the top. On the sand banks the rabbits sat as quietly as little gray, sculptured stones.

Of Mice and Men

Q.2. And does this version have the same meaning as Steinbeck’s?

Evening of a hot day started the little wind that moved among the leaves.

6
  • 1
    (Q1) '[It] started the little wind moving among the leaves' is the standard version. This might be justified as a 'literary' form, but it's hard to find another example; it sounds rather like Irish English. // (Q2) I'd prefer 'had started' here. Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 14:51
  • 1
    Per @MarcInManhattan, sounds like a rural dialect - plain talk. Moved is about equal to moving, but a one-time event. Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 14:52
  • 1
    Evening started the wind to moving means the same as Evening started the wind moving. Does the second sentence here make sense to you? Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 14:52
  • 2
    I'm reminded of the archaic a-Vin' usage: 'The wind set the vanes a-spinnin'.' 'The wind set the vanes to spinning.' Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 16:54
  • 3
    @EdwinAshworth You should be thus reminded; Steinbeck used started in the common way all the time, but he also used it differently in a few places. “But before Ma ate, she put the big round wash tub on the stove and started the fire to roaring." and "...but it was a man's voice that started her awake" are from Grapes of Wrath. "Suddenly her eyes glazed and her back arched like a spring and the blood started to her cheeks." is from East of Eden. "The house cracked, and although he had been listening for sounds, Pat started violently." is from Pastures of Heaven.
    – tchrist
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 17:45

3 Answers 3

19

You got me to thinking...

Thanks for your question, Mónica; it definitely made me think—by which I mean that it got me to thinking.

Now that’s a perfectly unremarkable use that you hear all the time, even though you don’t need the to preposition. I could have just said that it got me thinking—or that it got me to think. Same thing.

Why did Steinbeck use the to if he didn’t need to? Because it’s how (some) people once talked in a certain time and place, so it conveys that same sense of time and place. In America during the 1800s and early 1900s, you came upon this construction from time to time.

It wasn’t regional speech, either; it happened all over the country, and it wasn’t simply uneducated speech either; it appears in the U.S. Congressional Record from those times. I’ll provide citations later on down below, including some recent ones even.

Grammar Bits

“Making something do something” is actually a type of causative construction, the kind of thing you see whenever you:

  • ...make someone/something do whatever.
  • ...have someone/something do whatever.
  • ...let someone/something do whatever.
  • ...cause someone/something to do whatever.
  • ...get someone/something to do whatever.
  • ...help someone/something to do whatever.
  • ...help someone/something do whatever.

But it’s more than that. Using the verb start adds in an inchoative (or inceptive) aspect for initiating the activity, and the -ing form of the verb following adds the continuous aspect for showing that this activity is an ongoing one, not a completed one.

And it’s the same thing that you see happening with your Steinbeck quotation, too.

Evening of a hot day started the little wind to moving among the leaves.

Let’s whittle that down to its key elements, then go through some rewrites:

  • Evening started the wind to moving.
  • Evening made the wind start moving.
  • Evening got the wind to start moving.

Notice how that’s not really the same sense as in your proposed rewrite:

Evening of a hot day started the little wind that moved among the leaves.

That’s because the evening made the wind start moving. The action it caused or initiated was the verb moving.

Steinbeck did the same thing in The Grapes of Wrath when he wrote:

But before Ma ate, she put the big round wash tub on the stove and started the fire to roaring.

Whittled down and rewritten, that’s like:

  • Ma started the fire to roaring.
  • Ma got the fire to start roaring.
  • Ma made the fire start to roar.
  • Ma made the fire start roaring.

Citations

So although you’re more apt to come upon this in American writing from the 1800s, it does show up from time to time even now as the first couple citations show.

Selected Rewrites

And here are some transformations on those that preserve their sense:

  • What started me to doing this was that this guy named Cowboy wanted to go somewhere and he didn’t have nobody to watch his stuff.
  • What got me started doing this was that this guy named Cowboy wanted to go somewhere and he didn’t have nobody to watch his stuff.
  • What got me to start doing this was that this guy named Cowboy wanted to go somewhere and he didn’t have nobody to watch his stuff.
  • What got me to start to do this was that this guy named Cowboy wanted to go somewhere and he didn’t have nobody to watch his stuff.

  • That started me to watching for caterpillars and eggs out of doors, and friends of my work began carrying them to me.
  • That got me started watching for caterpillars and eggs out of doors, and friends of my work began carrying them to me.
  • That got me to start watching for caterpillars and eggs out of doors, and friends of my work began carrying them to me.
  • That got me to start to watch for caterpillars and eggs out of doors, and friends of my work began carrying them to me.

  • It was that inspiration that started me to recording the first of my original improvisations, both poetical and melodical.
  • That was the inspiration that got me started recording the first of my original improvisations, both poetical and melodical.
  • It was that inspiration that got me to start recording the first of my original improvisations, both poetical and melodical.
  • It was that inspiration that got me to start to record the first of my original improvisations, both poetical and melodical.
  • That was the inspiration that got me to start to record the first of my original improvisations, both poetical and melodical.

  • And that started us to looking around a little more.
  • And that got us started looking around a little more.
  • And that got us to start looking around a little more.
  • And that got us to start to look around a little more.
  • And that made us start looking around a little more.
  • And that made us start to look around a little more.

  • The weather was then warm, which started them to brooding.
  • The weather was then warm, which got them started to brood.
  • The weather was then warm, which got them started brooding.
  • The weather was then warm, which got them to start to brood.
  • The weather was then warm, which got them to start to brood.
  • The weather was then warm, which made them start to brood.
  • The weather was then warm, which made them start brooding.

  • I set my teeth together hard every time those playful brutes started us to rolling.
  • I set my teeth together hard every time those playful brutes got us started rolling.
  • I set my teeth together hard every time those playful brutes got us to start rolling.
  • I set my teeth together hard every time those playful brutes made us start rolling.

  • The rains over night would have started them to growing afresh.
  • The overnight rains would have gotten them started growing afresh.
  • The overnight rains would have gotten them to start growing afresh.
  • The overnight rains would have made them start growing afresh.
  • The overnight rains would have made them start to grow afresh.
1
  • 3
    This is the most thorough, clear answer I have ever had about a grammatical doubt. Thank you very much, Chris, for taking the time to explain this. I now understand why my interpretation was incorrect. It’s only recently I’ve taken the time to make use of English Stack Exchange and I must say I’m seriously impressed by the scholarly answers many people provide, such as yours. I want to congratulate the team behind this amazing mine of knowledge and its community.
    – Mónica Q
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 22:09
4

Usage in this area (whether or not to include to between start and a gerund1) has changed significantly over time. Until a century ago, we were as likely to include the "extraneous" to as not...

enter image description here

But we almost never do that today...

enter image description here

Obviously it's ridiculous to suppose that the "rules of grammar" changed during this period. It's just idiomatic preference that changed. But unless you want to sound "weird", you should definitely side with the majority.


1 gerund erroneously called a continuous participle in the first version of this answer. But is that any reason for a downvote? Perhaps I should just save myself some grief and copy those smart linguists who call them -ing verb forms.

5
  • What do you mean by "idiomatic preference"? And how can you make a statement like "until a century ago" based on data that doesn't go back to before 1855? Not that the statement is incorrect -- just that your data is limited. Finally, your data covers only the printed word. What if I told you that I personally know "mountain folk" who would say "started them to moving" even today? They're not "weird"; they just happen to speak with a regional dialect that has not been "educated out" of them.
    – TimR
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 18:34
  • 'Rules of grammar' are not fixed, but usage-driven (if rather more slowly in general than definitions of words are). Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 19:07
  • @Tim: The possibility that you know "mountain folk" who still use the outdated verb form isn't really relevant. Most native Anglophones (including me) would think the usage was at least slightly odd, and only a really daft non-native speaker would want to unwittingly use a "generally recognised as outdated" expression if they could just as easily learn the current mainstream standard version. Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 19:48
  • @FumbleFingers: For them the speech pattern isn't "outdated" at all. It's how they have always talked and how they will continue to talk. Why should they learn to talk like city folk?
    – TimR
    Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 20:01
  • @Tim: I'm not running down dialectal speakers at all, nor am I suggesting they should change their speech patterns. I'm simply pointing out that few if any learners would want to be "accidentally" picking up non-standard usages. Not least because some native speakers do in fact harbour prejudices against people who don't talk the way they do. And "mainstream" English is just that - it's not "how city folk talk". Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 3:25
-1

Consider the following:

The wind started the windmill spinning.

We have started with a direct object the windmill and a non-finite complement spinning, which is what the windmill was doing.

Now consider:

The wind caused the windmill to spin.

Again, a direct object the windmill and a non-finite complement, to spin.

What we have in the quote from Steinbeck is a kind of hybrid, where a non-finite clause that doesn't need to has it nonetheless, and the complement is in a form that the standard use of started does not license:

... to spinning.

It's regional talk.

Compare "start them to moving" here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Experiences_of_a_Trapper_and_Hunter/UbbZ6ThFkAQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22them+to+moving%22&pg=PA96&printsec=frontcover

8
  • 1
    What rubbish! Whether you call it a continuous participle or a gerund, the -ing form was rarely used in "verb-based complement" until the mid-1800s. And since then there's been an idiomatic free-for-all as to which verbs stick with the infinitive (afford, agree, arrange, ask, begin,...) and those that embraced the continuous (admnit, avoid, consider,...) - plus those thsat swing either way (hate, like, love, prefer,...). But the distinction is effectively arbitrary - there are no special syntactic rules beyond "idiomacy" in play here. Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 19:32
  • @FumbleFingers I didn't call it a continuous participle or a gerund. It was Lambie making that distinction. I referred to it as a non-finite complement.
    – TimR
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 21:31
  • What is your evidence for "until the mid-1800s"? Just curious what you're consulting. When I posted my answer, I got a message warning me to cite some authority or risk having my answer deleted.
    – TimR
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 21:36
  • And are you saying that my claim that Steinbeck is using dialect here is rubbish? Really?
    – TimR
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 21:37
  • Hoyle (1788) ...to prevent the ball rolling off google.com/books/edition/Hoyle_s_Games_Improved/…
    – TimR
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 21:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .