0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage
Entitled to
Hello everybody,
a grammatical problem that I have never found a satisfactory explanation for goes as follows:
a) He is entitled to a seat in the board of directors. b) He is entitled to sit in the board of directors.
Assuming that both sentences are grammatically correct, I wonder why in sentence b the
verb "sit" does not take the gerund form as it is the rule for all verbs following a preposition.
For German learners it is a problem to determine whether "to" represents a preposition
or is the paricle of an infinitive. So we were given the rule that if "to" can be followed by a noun, it must be a preposition: He is used to drinking whiskey / he is used to whiskey
On the other hand, as long as "to" cannot be followed sensibly by a noun, it must
consequently be the particle of an infinitive:
He used to drink whiskey / He used to whiskey (nonsense)
In the cases mentioned above, however, "to" can carry either forms, a verb or a noun, without affecting the rules of the gerund.
Is it then a preposition (followed by an infinitive) or an infinitive particle (followed by a
noun)?
Thank you very much in advance for your patience; my apologies for the poor English
I produced.
Norbert Koch (Germany)
a grammatical problem that I have never found a satisfactory explanation for goes as follows:
a) He is entitled to a seat in the board of directors. b) He is entitled to sit in the board of directors.
Assuming that both sentences are grammatically correct, I wonder why in sentence b the
verb "sit" does not take the gerund form as it is the rule for all verbs following a preposition.
For German learners it is a problem to determine whether "to" represents a preposition
or is the paricle of an infinitive. So we were given the rule that if "to" can be followed by a noun, it must be a preposition: He is used to drinking whiskey / he is used to whiskey
> preposition I look forward to seeing you / I look forward to our meeting
> prepositionOn the other hand, as long as "to" cannot be followed sensibly by a noun, it must
consequently be the particle of an infinitive:
He used to drink whiskey / He used to whiskey (nonsense)
In the cases mentioned above, however, "to" can carry either forms, a verb or a noun, without affecting the rules of the gerund.
Is it then a preposition (followed by an infinitive) or an infinitive particle (followed by a
noun)?
Thank you very much in advance for your patience; my apologies for the poor English
I produced.
Norbert Koch (Germany)
Top answer
[nq:1]Hello everybody, a grammatical problem that I have never found a satisfactory explanation for goes as follows: a) He is ... [/nq] See more detail below. But the simplest answer to "why" is "because", since most of us consider the rules as following usage and not causing it.
- [nq:1]Hello everybody, a grammatical problem that I have never found a satisfactory explanation for goes as follows: a) He is ...
- [/nq] See more detail below.
- But the simplest answer to "why" is "because", since most of us consider the rules as following usage and not causing it.
- There may be some etymological history.
- [nq:1]For German learners it is a problem to determine whether "to" represents a preposition or is the paricle of an ...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
[nq:1]Hello everybody, a grammatical problem that I have never found a satisfactory explanation for goes as follows: a) He is ... the verb "sit" does not take the gerund form as it is the rule for all verbs following a preposition.[/nq]
See more detail below. But the simplest answer to "why" is "because", since most of us consider the rules as following usage and not causing it. There may be s
See more detail below. But the simplest answer to "why" is "because", since most of us consider the rules as following usage and not causing it. There may be s
0
Related Questions