Does this make sense?

Question

Does this make sense, especially "to know" at the end?"I was hoping that I would be the person that you'd wanna tell these things to know."

RandomGuy · Accepted Answer

No. Drop know, and you have an OK sentence.

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimwanna

And spell this out as 'want to'.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

Does this make sense, especially "to know" at the end?
"I was hoping that I would be the person that you'd wanna tell these things to know."

Aspara GusNo. Drop know, and you have an OK sentence.

You mean, the "to" at the end, then, is a preposition, right?
If so, how about I do without it, like "I was hoping that I would be the person that you'd wanna tell these things"?

RandomGuy · Answer

JungKimYou mean, the "to" at the end, then, is a preposition, right?
If so, how about I do without it, like "I was hoping that I would be the person that you'd wanna tell these things"?

No, to is required.

It's not wrong to end a sentence with a preposition, but if you're that opposed to it, there is a solution.

I was hoping that I would be the person to whom you'd want to tell these things.

JungKim · Answer

Aspara GusNo, to is required.It's not wrong to end a sentence with a preposition, but if you're that opposed to it, there is a solution.I was hoping that I would be the person to whom you'd want to tell these things.

I'm curious as to why "to" is required.
Is it because of some grammar rule
OR
is it because, without "to" there, the relative clause sounds ambiguous
OR
a little bit of both?

CalifJim · Answer

I was hoping that I would be the person that you'd want to tell these things to.
I was hoping that I would be the person that you'd want to tell these things.

JungKimI'm curious as to why "to" is required.Is it because of some grammar rule

This issue has come up on the forum before. I'd say that the majority of native speakers want to hear the "to". Personally, I don't think it's really necessary.
____________

It has to do with the transformation of an indirect object when it is pronomialized for use in an interrogative sentence or in a relative clause.

Starting with the sentence You give him the money, the question is "Can you pronomialize the indirect object directly?" thus:

You give him the money > Who( m ) do you give the money?
___

"Or must you change the indirect object to its "to" form first?" thus:

You give him the money > You give the money to him > Who( m ) do you give the money to?
_____

The question is the same for forming a relative clause:

Can we do this?
You give him the money > ... who you give the money
Or must we do this?
You give him the money > You give the money to him > ... who you give the money to.
_________________________

I'll leave it to you to figure out how it applies to your example, starting with You would want to tell me these things.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimIt has to do with the transformation of an indirect object when it is pronomialized for use in an interrogative sentence or in a relative clause.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but without to in these cases, the sentence seems incomplete and, well, wrong.

I'd like to think there's some little known rule behind this, but maybe I'm just used to hearing to.

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusI can't quite put my finger on it, but without to in these cases, the sentence seems incomplete and, well, wrong.

You are in the majority on this one.

It appears that the only time the majority can do without the 'to' is when the verb does not allow the form with 'to'.

For example, ask.

You can have Ask me a question, but not Ask a question to me.

Therefore, you can't do the transformation:

Ask me a question > Ask a question to me > Who did you ask a question to?

Therefore, native speakers think "Who did you ask a question?" sounds fine compared with "Who did you tell that story?"

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimFor example, ask.
You can have Ask me a question, but not Ask a question to me.

Do you know the term for this kind of verb, if there is one?

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusDo you know the term for this kind of verb, if there is one?

I don't know of an exact term, but I've seen them under the heading

"Non-alternating double object only" verbs.

CJ

Does this make sense?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions