Learn to do

0 You can convert, "He stopped smoking" into "He decided not to smoke anymore." 02br
02br
00"He learned not to smoke." does not necessarily mean "He stopped smoking." just like, "He learned not to make mistakes." does not necessarily mean "He stopped making mistakes" because he could still be making mistakes inadvertently. 0-

0 Hi Taka, 02br
02br
00'He stopped smoking.' is a very simple statement. You can change it to these other statements, but you are adding additional meaning. 02br
00We have absolutely no idea at all why he stopped smoking. Perhaps he died. 02br
02br
00Best wishes, and don't smoke! 02br
00Clive 02br
0-

0lol. I don't smoke.05002br
02br
00So, strictly from a grammatical point of view, 'He leared not to smoke' is correct, but the meaning is slightly different from 'He stopped smoking'. 02br
02br
00But, what about the negative of 'come to do'? It's grammatically unacceptable to say 'come not to do'. So, we cannot say 'He came not to smoke,right? 010id

0( I do 05000 )02br
02br
00How about: "he finally stopped/quit smoking" ? "he managed to stop/quit smoking" ? 02br
00Maybe quit is more effective, to say that he really doesn't smoke at all anymore. 010id6

0 To Taka, 02br
02br
00Re: It's grammatically unacceptable to say 'come not to do'. 02br
02br
00That is NOT correct. Here are some examples for you to take into consideration:- 02br
02br
00a) I have come here not to criticize, but to learn. 02br
02br
00b) They have come to drink and not to eat. 02br
02br

0 Hi again, 02br
00Yes, 'He learned not to smoke' is OK. 02br
00The 'to' here is part of the infinitive 'to smoke'. 02br
02br
00But 'He came not to smoke' sounds unacceptable to me. 02br
00I think it's because the 'to' here is part of the two-word verb 'come to', and the words should not be separated. For this reason, I might say 'He came t

0 I agree that we have to distinguish between a) 'come to do = arrive here to do' and b) 'come to do = 'became accustomed to do, over time'. 02br
02br
00The former seems able to take the 'not' construction, as Temico suggests, and as we find in the ?fairly common distortion of Shakespeare: 02br
02br
001. I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him [= 'I c

0 MrP. 02br
02br
00OK, so the negative of the ideomatic 'come to do' is not acceptable whreas that of 'lean to do' is fine. 02br
02br
00Am I right? 0-

0 Hello Taka 02br
02br
00I know you get unpleasant with this, but please allow me to put my two cents on your question. 02br
02br
00"He learned to smoke" 02br
00If we compare this with "He learned English", we see "to smoke" here is working as a noun phrase. If we negate the action "smoke", we get a sub-surface collocation like "He learned to

0 To paco2004, 02br
02br
00Re: Here we should remind "He learned not to smoke" is not equal to "He didn't learn to smoke". 02br
02br
00"We should remind" WHOM, may I ask? In this contect "should remind" is a transitive verb, or am I wrong?? 0-