One dictionary says...

Question

One dictionary says we can't use the "too adj N to ..." structure when N is plural or uncountable.
(1) These are too tough questions to answer. (wrong)
(2) It's too dirty water to drink. (wrong)
Please ascertain this, moderators.

If the dictionary is right, is "many/much" an exception?

(3) There are too many people to feed in the refugee camp.
(4) I 've got too much homework to do today.

I think (3) and (4) are immaculate.

Agog for your comments.

Jandi · Accepted Answer

Sorry! May I come in this?

I think the point is the same as this case.
[NG] Which is your book?
-> Which book is yours?
[NG] This is my book.
-> This book is mine.

[NG] These are too tough questions to answer.
[NG] These are too tough questions.
-> These questions are too tough (to answer).

[NG] It's too dirty water to drink.
[NG] It's too dirty water.
-> The water is too dirty (to drink).

Are my thoughts rubbish?
All the best.

Casi · Answer

I agree with Jandi's response, and (3) and (4) are correct.

In addition, the singular forms are correct, with or without 'of':

(5) It's too dirty (of) a glass to use.
(6) This is too tough (of) a question to answer.

It seems the distribution in (1) and (2) is related to syntax, whereas the distribution in (3), (4), (5), and ( 6) is related to semantics.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello Casi

I would not quite agree with your thoughts on 5 and 6, since 'of' could not be inserted here; you could only say 'it's too dirty a glass to use'/'too tough a question to answer'.

'Dirty of', 'tough of' have another meaning:

'That's very dirty/tough of you' = 'you are being very dirty/tough'.

MrP

Paco2004 · Answer

Casi

So do you mean that 'too/so Adj N' is constructed by leaving out 'of' in 'too/so Adj of N'?
Hurm. I've heard it for the first time.

But even if it is the case, why the N can't be plural or uncountable?

paco

MrPedantic · Answer

These are my thoughts on the structure...Please feel free to comment adversely.

The underlying structure of the 'normal' form is:

[article/demonstrative/possessive pronoun] [noun] [copular verb] too [adj] to [verb]

e.g.

1. 'The question is too difficult to answer.'
2. 'The goalkeeper is too easy to beat.'
3. 'That knot looks too hard to untie.'
4. 'My painting seems too good to sell.'

The underlying structure of the 'emphatic' form is:

[pronoun/demonstrative/poss. pronoun] [copular] too [adj] [indefinite noun] to [verb]

e.g.

1a. 'It is too difficult a question to answer.'
2a. 'He is too easy a goalkeeper to beat.'
3a. 'That looks too hard a knot to untie.'
4a. 'Mine seems too good a painting to sell.'

In moving from the normal to the emphatic, we make the following transpositions:

i) 'the + noun' > a pronoun
ii) 'demonstrative adj. + noun' > demonstrative pronoun
iii) 'possessive pronoun (first form) + noun' > poss. pronoun (second form) — e.g.

'The painting' > 'It'
'The goalkeeper' > 'He'
'That knot' > 'That'
'My painting' > 'Mine'

The noun itself, meanwhile, becomes 'indefinite' — in effect, a representative of a kind, e.g. 'a question', 'a painting'. You could say the 'emphatic' versions are implicitly as follows:

1b. 'It is too difficult a [type of] question to answer.'
2b. 'He is too easy a [type of] goalkeeper to beat.'
3b. 'That looks too hard a [type of] knot to untie.'
4b. 'Mine seems too good a [type of] painting to sell.'

Thus plurals and uncountables (which can't take an indefinite article, or act as representatives of a kind) behave oddly in this structure:

5. 'The shoes are too difficult to keep clean.'
6. 'Water seems too ordinary to sell.'
7. 'Drugs are too easy to hide.'

Making the transpositions:

5a. 'They are too difficult a shoe to keep clean' — ?'they' vs 'a'
6a. 'It seems too ordinary a water to sell' — ?'a water'
7a. 'They are too easy a drug to hide' — ?'they' vs 'a'; meaning changes

(Surprisingly, googling on versions of this transposed form is unsuccessful, which suggests there's remarkable resistance to it from native and non-native speakers.)

Note that if we try omitting the indefinite article, the emphatic version no longer refers to a representative of a kind, but to a specific case:

5b. 'They are too difficult shoes to keep clean.'
6a. 'It seems too ordinary water to sell.'
7a. 'They are too easy drugs to hide.'

Interestingly, there are also 'emphatic' forms with no reasonable 'normal' form:

8a. 'You are too good a cook to sack.'
8. ?'The cook (who is you) is too good to sack'/'You as a cook are too good to sack'.

MrP

Paco2004 · Answer

Mr P

Thank you as usual. I like your replies, because they contain something to make me ponder about. This time, however, I'm still not sure if I could catch all what are you arguing but I guess one point you are talking is that is an ellipsis of . This argument seems to be a good answer to our wondering why the N in the structure should be singular countable, though I did not still get the reason why should precede .

As for the Komoutain's questioning about why the construction is possible, I agree to your answer. That would be made simply by adding (falsely?), for example, to . I think you would say to means . Here works rather as a simple absolute intensifier than as an adverb connoting relative degrees.

What I could not get in your message is the last paragraph. "There are also 'emphatic' forms with no reasonable 'normal' form". What do you mean by "no reasonable 'normal' forms"?

paco.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello Paco

Sorry, the square brackets were a bit misleading; I meant them as 'interpretation', rather than straight ellipses. (If they represented straight ellipses, someone could legitimately say, you've solved the question of 'it is too difficult a question'; now explain 'too difficult a kind'!)

I meant to bring out the 'indefiniteness' of the transposed noun — i.e. the 'thisness' of 'this question' is now wholly embodied in the demonstrative pronoun, while the 'questionness' has become non-specific:

'This question is too difficult to answer' =>
'This is a question of a kind too difficult to answer =>
'This is too difficult a (kind of) question to answer.'

(I notice that this construction may be used with plurals and non-countables:

'These are questions of a kind too difficult to answer.'
'This is water of a kind too polluted to drink.')

Thus the noun in the 'too...a...to' construction seems to depend on 'indefiniteness', whereas the noun in the simple 'too...to' is specific. (As in the example above, where we move grammatically from 'this particular question' to 'a question'.)

'Too much/too many...to' seems to be a slightly different construction. As you say, it relates to failure to 'do' because of quantity, rather than failure to 'do' because of a particular quality (e.g. relative 'difficulty'). As far as I can see, it doesn't involve strict copularity.

Also, the 'too much/many' examples seem to me to belong to the 'specific' class:

'I have too much homework to do' — my specific homework.
'There are too many people to feed' — those specific people.

MrP

Paco2004 · Answer

Hello MrP

I was sorry I had not come here a couple of days but I was glad to find your reply. I read it again and again but I have to admit I did not get the points of your argument.

I feel as if what you talked about is something like that "this flower is red" must be changed into "this is a red flower" when one transposes the noun 'flower'. I'll not argue against this argument itself. But I think one could say "these are red flowers" as the noun-transposed sentence of "these flowers are red". If it is the case, why can't we say "these are too tough questions to answer" as the noun-transposed sentence of "these questions are too tough to answer"?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your message.

paco.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello Paco

First, I should answer your previous question about the 'emphatic forms with no reasonable normal form'. My thought here is that it's perfectly idiomatic to say:

'You are too good a cook to sack.'

—which looks like the same construction as 'this is too tough a question to answer'. So it ought to be possible to work backwards to a regular form (with the construction of 'these questions are too tough to answer').

But in fact, no such form exists — all we can create are forms that are never used, e.g.

'The cook (i.e. you) is too good to sack'
'You as a cook are too good to sack'.

(I use the terms 'emphatic form' and 'normal form', because the 'too X a Y to' construction is used when more emphasis is required.)

Now to your latest question:

I feel as if what you talked about is something like that "this flower is red" must be changed into "this is a red flower" when one transposes the noun 'flower'. I'll not argue against this argument itself. But I think one could say "these are red flowers" as the noun-transposed sentence of "these flowers are red". If it is the case, why can't we say "these are too tough questions to answer" as the noun-transposed sentence of "these questions are too tough to answer"?

I'll try to show the movement I think occurs when the 'too X a Y to' structure is used:

1. This too red flower — specific.
2. This flower is too red to put there — specific.
3. This is too red a flower to put there — specific + non-specific.

At this point, we have movement. The phrase 'this flower' divides; 'this' still refers to the specific flower, but the word 'flower' now has an indefinite (i.e. non-specific) meaning.

If however the noun is plural, this movement doesn't happen:

1a. These too red flowers — specific.
2a. These flowers are too red to put there — specific.
3a. These are too red flowers to put there — specific.

At this point, there is no movement. The phrase 'these flowers' divides, but both 'these' and 'too red flowers' refer to the specific flowers. 'Too red' here simply describes; whereas in 'too red a flower', it distinguishes. Nor can an indefinite article can be inserted —

3b. *These are too red a flowers to put there.
3c. *These are too red a flower to put there.

(It occurred to me that the 3c structure might exist as an 'ungrammatical' alternative; but a few experimental googles showed that it's surprisingly unused. Try googling on 'these are too good a', for instance.)

Another curious feature of 3a is that it seems to have the opposite meaning to the one we want — in 2a, the flowers are not to be 'put there'; in 3a, they are!

I hope this explains the hypothesis a little better, but let me know if it doesn't!

MrP

Paco2004 · Answer

Mr P

Thank you a lot for the detailed explanation. Now I feel I'm going on the way to get what you are saying. I think the core of your arguments lies in the part;

At this point, there is no movement. The phrase 'these flowers' divides, but both 'these' and 'too red flowers' refer to the specific flowers. 'Too red' here simply describes; whereas in 'too red a flower', it distinguishes.

Probably you feel as an extraordinary (pseudo-ungrammatical) construct, because the phrase comes before a full noun phrase . Therefore, I suppose, this kind of construct has a strong impact enough to emphasize the degree of the sense of the Adj. But when we apply this construct to the case where N is plural or uncountable it inevitably become , and in this case, you take the phrase rather as a simple normal noun phrase where the is modified by an attributive adjectival phrase . So, I suppose, it would lose its impact of grammatical abnormality and you would feel the construct makes no sense in this case.

Is this understanding on the right way?

paco

One dictionary says...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions