5

The to-infinitival to go to Rome may not be separated from the verb that licenses it planned and foregrounded in the it-cleft construction. This is possible with objects - noun phrases, but not with to-infinitival complements. It was her death that I desired. * It was to kill her that I desired. to-infinitivals may be foregrounded if they are adjuncts of ...


3

You have two possibilities, both grammatical, but with different meanings "harming" means that they did not, in fact, harm the mice "to harm" means that they took the care for the purpose of refraining from the harm.


3

[1] Ted was surprised to see his computer shutting down. [2] Ted was surprised seeing his computer shutting down. [3] It was nice to talk with you. [4] It was nice talking with you. [5] It is impossible to understand him. [6] It is impossible understanding him. Adjectives don't normally license (permit/require) gerund-participial clauses (ing forms) as ...


2

You use the verb 'help' with or without a 'to infinitive'. The meaning remains the same. You don't help yourself but you help others. Your third sentence sounds like you're helping yourself in maintaining the library. I'm helping _ in maintaining the library. You don't fill in that blank. The object of help could be anything but you.


2

From CaGEL p1178 To-infinitivals with and without subject To-infinitivals with overt subject require the subordinator for To-infinitivals containing a subject are always introduced by the subordinator for: [20] i [For them to withdraw now] would be a mistake. [subject] ii It's not been necessary [for them to wait any longer]. ...


1

The sentence reads oddly. 'Not to be making someone laugh' at a particular moment isn't exactly a fault. Perhaps you mean It was my fault that I could not make you laugh?


1

It does seem that urgent is used less often than imperative here, and the comments show that some people perceive it as less idiomatic. I don't myself perceive anything wrong with urgent to. Furthermore, while Google Ngrams shows that it is used less often, it is quickly gaining currency. I believe the reason for this is that urgent to means something ...


1

1/ surprised: ~ at/by sb/sth), ~ that…; ~ (to see, to hear, etc); see OALD. This means that "surprised seeing" should not be used; however, this usage has come into being in the present century, as shows Google Books. There is no difference, then. "Surprised seeing" should not be confused with "surprised, seeing"; in this ...


1

I am sorry that you received no reply from the learners' site. It would have been a lot easier to answer there Individuals sometimes find themselves drowned in a mountain of tasks since they procrastinate their non-essential yet needed-to-be-done-someday duties to the last minute. As Edwin Ashworth has pointed out, the transitive use of "procrastinate" ...


1

I have read that after but, except, than, bare Infinitive (i.e., Infinitive without to) is used. Parenthetically (People always say they have read, or have heard, or a friend told them, about these rules, but they never say where or who. Very curious. Is there a Deep State Grammar that keeps ELU questions coming?) This is a rather silly rule and does not ...


1

Considering Ice Melting. A participle phrase where melting( a present participle) acts as an adjective to the noun ice. its easily discernible as you can use an adjective clause,or relative clause, and get the exact same meaning. As in -> Arctic animals are now in danger because of the ice which/that is melting. Or Considering because of ice melting due ...


1

In comments John Lawler wrote: Yes, clauses, like infinitive clauses, gerund clauses, that-clauses, and wh-clauses, can be direct objects of certain verbs. Each verb is different. Try can take a noun or pronoun object (He never tried that before), a gerund object (He tried waterskiing and didn't like it), or an infinitive object, as you point out. There ...


1

[1] I was happy [to have finished everything early]. [2] *I was happy [to had finished everything early]. The perfect is a past tense that is marked by means of the the auxiliary "have", which is inflected for primary tense ("has" or "had"), as in for example, "Ed has been ill" / "Ed had been ill". These ...


1

There is no present perfect infinitive.  Infinitives don't have tense.  They don't mark either the present or the past. One way to show the difference is to use a verb that has a separate infinitive form.  The verb to be happens to have that property: I was happy to be finished with everything early. No present-tense form fits.  We don't use "to ...


1

They are all adjuncts ('adverbials' in traditional grammar) in clause structure - the first two are depictive giving descriptive information, and the last one resultative expressing a subsequent situation (CaGEL p1224). In the first two the situations are simultaneous and could be paraphrased crudely as: He was lying on the ground and staring into the sky ...


1

Re: Not learning French is my biggest regret. but not *Not to learn French is my biggest regret. Really, the negative is just a distraction. You can't say *To learn French is my biggest regret either. The reason is simply that the complex predicate adjective be one's biggest regret does not allow an infinitive subject complement. If if did, it might ...


1

At its most basic without a full lecture: Gerunds are used when actions are real, fixed, or completed. "I enjoy cooking." Infinitives are used when actions are unreal, abstract, or future: "He wants to swim." ...........but there are loads of exceptions!


1

First a definition: There are three kinds of finite subordinate clause: relative, comparative and content. The latter lacks the special properties of the other two, and is regarded as the default kind. The term 'content clause' reflects its default status: it suggests that the clause is simply selected for its semantic content. “That you can’t pick it up” ...


1

If you are asking how to prove it's incorrect I think by referring to the present subjunctive mood. The word "remove" here is not an infinitive. It is in the subjunctive mood, which in this case looks like the basic form of the verb. However, if you changed the person into the 3rd one, the form of the verb wouldn't change: it is important that he remove. ...


1

Either harming or to harm would work, but the sentence really needs an again at the end since they already harmed them before.


1

Your example sentence regarding a "promise to [...]" is of the direct object usage. "To get there in time" is the thing that was promised (in the abstract). Other examples of the direct object case are below. Notice these are all infinitives. I sought to learn more. She wanted to go. He started to run. However, there are plenty examples of a "to" ...


1

An easy rule of thumb is that the bare infinitive can only be used with: (1) Verbs of perception: I saw him eat pasta. I heard him speak in Italian. (2) The verbs let, make, have: I let them leave at once. I made them leave at once. I had them leave at once.


1

The infinitive (or perhaps it should be analyzed as the subjunctive?) gives a sense of completion, while the gerund gives more of a sense of process. So "There is a new approach to solving homelessness" indicates that the approach will help work on the problem of homelessness, while "There is a new approach to solve homelessness" implies that it will ...


1

Both "Your hair needs to be cut." and "Your hair needs cutting." are grammatically correct sentences, though the former sounds very formal and the latter would sound odd to an American English speaker, who would more likely say "You need a haircut."


1

If you see "to" before a verb it's telling you it's an infinitive so the question of tense doesn't come into consideration. The infinitive is formed by putting "to" before the verb. In this case it should be "caused him to scrape the skin away".


1

It shows there is an implied ending that the listener already understands. For example, if I said, "Would you like me to give you a ride to the airport," you might respond, "I'd love you to" or maybe just "Love you to." I know that you'd love me to ... take you to the airport. As for what the title means, well, you'll have to figure out what the Beatles ...


1

Taken literally, and in isolation from any context, the phrase does mean that someone is expected to take both actions. Such reading would, of course, normally be absurd in real life because, as TRomano pointed out in a comment 'the power to approve involves the power to withhold approval'. For this literal reading to make sense, we would have to assume that ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible