Start + gerund/infinitive

Question

Hello!I'm a 17-year-old Polish student who is constantly becoming more and more interested in foreign languages.Some time ago I became aware that both options (I mean what I included in the subject line:) are equal. Then I decided I wanted to find the difference - even the slightest possible  And it seems that it is so - even some Australian educated native speaker couldn't tell me what the difference was. Bywater in 'Proficiency Course in English' also doesn't point to any difference, mentioning only both options are equally correct. But I still bet there must be some diffrence - otherwise what would this distinction be for? Could anyone explain this bothering me matter? Huge thanks in advance.PS. Fell free to correct me everytime I make a mistake - I want to be stylistically correct too Piotr Damer (http://piotrd.czuby.net/) (www): http://kolej.czuby.net/ (mobile): +48 505 924 130

Usenet · Accepted Answer

Piotr Damer wrote on 16 May 2004:
[nq:1]Hello! I'm a 17-year-old Polish student who is constantly becoming more and more interested in foreign languages. Some time ago I became aware that both options (I mean what I included in the subject line:) are equal.[/nq]
They seem to be semantically almost equal, yes, but they are actually semantically, stylistically, grammatically, and structurally different.
[nq:1]Then I decided I wanted to find the difference - even the slightest possible

And it seems that it is so - even some Australian educated native speaker couldn't tell me what the difference was.[/nq]
Style, sound, number of blank spaces, spelling, and the sense of continuous action that the present participle (the /-ing/ word) provides.
1. "He started to chew his shoes."

versus
2. "He started chewing his shoes."

The first one can suggest that he began the chewing motion but then stopped immediately, while the second one suggests that he actually moved his mandible in a chewing motion a few times.
3. "He started to shoot."

versus
4. "He started shooting."

In #3, he may have gone through a few of the motions, eg "Ready", "Aim", "Squeeze the trigger finger slowly and steadily", but stopped before actually firing off a round, either because he had forgotten to take the safety off, so the gun would not fire, or because he had a change of mind. Not so with #4, which tells us that he actually fired off a round or more.
You can use #3 in a sentence that ends with "but discovered, much to his chagrin and mortal detriment, that the safety was still on, so his opponent managed to get off three shots at him, the last of which struck him in the heart". You cannot end #4 with this scenario, however.
[nq:1]Bywater in 'Proficiency Course in English' also doesn't point to any difference, mentioning only both options are equally correct. But I still bet there must be some diffrence - otherwise what would this distinction be for?

Could anyone explain this(?)[/nq]
Put your final "?" here
[nq:1]bothering me matter?[/nq]
This is not English structure.
[nq:1]:) Huge thanks in advance.[/nq]
"Huge thanks in advance" is poor style for two reasons. "Huge thanks" is a new one on me, but it is, IMHO, stylistically objectionable not incorrect, mind you, just too presumptuous and too much like a girl who bats her eyelashes at a boy and expects him to jump through whatever hoops she decides to display for him. And the idiomatic norm is "many thanks", because one can say "thank you" an enormous number of times, but "huge thanks" have no logical or commonsense meaning; those words conjur up a cartoon balloon with 3 or 4 "THANKS!" in 72-point type. And the "in advance" thing is inherently presumptuous regardless of how how many people use it: 60 million Frenchmen can be wrong.
[nq:1]PS. Fell free to correct me everytime I make a mistake - I want to be stylistically correct too

[/nq]
There's no such thing as "stylistically correct" unless one is following a rigid set of style rules. You really want to say that you want your usage to be "idiomatically correct".

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

I think "start to ..." & start "...ing" are synonymous in the sense that you could always change one to the other without changing the truth or falsehood of the statement. To my ear, however, the infinitive is more natural for frustrated attempts, and the gerund for actions that continue:
He started to talk, but the judge interrupted him.

He started talking the moment we sat down, and continued his presentation till noon without a break.
The other way around would not be wrong, but would sound a little less natural to me.

Joe Fineman (Email Removed)

Usenet · Answer

Hello!

OK. I thought there could be something wrong about it... And what about using a hyphen in such cases? I mean constructs like 'bothering-me', 'the shot-by-her sister' etc. What do you think to them in general?
And the simplest way would be - I suppose - using a subordinate clause: The matter, which bothers/niggles me greatly etc. Am I right or would you simply suggest that I leave out the part completely?
[nq:2]:) Huge thanks in advance.[/nq]
[nq:1]"Huge thanks in advance" is poor style for two reasons. "Huge thanks" is a new one on me, but it ... "in advance" thing is inherently presumptuous regardless of how how many people use it: 60 million Frenchmen can be wrong.[/nq]
The explanation is definitely very clear to me

(oh - and what do you find better: 'clear to me' or 'for me' in this case?) So, after all, do you suggest not using 'in advance' at all?
[nq:2]PS. Fell free to correct me everytime I make a mistake - I want to be stylistically correct too

[/nq]
[nq:1]There's no such thing as "stylistically correct" unless one is following a rigid set of style rules. You really want to say that you want your usage to be "idiomatically correct".[/nq]
I understand. So... many thanks

for all your remarks. This group seems to be one of the best language resources (if not THE best in my situation, when I have no opportunity of getting closer to the REAL English at the moment) for me.
Regards. (or, maybe, would you use something else in this context?:))

Piotr Damer (http://piotrd.czuby.net/)
(www): http://kolej.czuby.net/
(mobile): +48 505 924 130

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
[nq:2]Put your final "?" here This is not English structure.[/nq]
[nq:1]OK. I thought there could be something wrong about it... And what about using a hyphen in such cases? I mean constructs like 'bothering-me', 'the shot-by-her sister' etc. What do you think to them in general?[/nq]
No, hyphens are not used. Phrases of this type follow, rather than precede, the noun they modify: "Could anyone explain this matter bothering me?", "the woman shot by her sister", "the man swimming the English Channel", "the pretzel choked on by the President", etc.
[nq:1]And the simplest way would be - I suppose - using a subordinate clause: The matter, which bothers/niggles me greatly etc. Am I right or would you simply suggest that I leave out the part completely?[/nq]
That will work also, but since it is more wordy adds another hierarchical layer of complexity, it can be clumsy.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]1. "He started to chew his shoes." versus 2. "He started chewing his shoes." The first one can suggest that ... stopped immediately, while the second one suggests that he actually moved his mandible in a chewing motion a few times.[/nq]
It can suggest that, but without any further information, the two sentences on their own convey exactly the same meaning to me. Even if you add, after this sentence "She yelled at him to stop at once, which he did", I would still get the impression in both cases that at least one chew mark would be left on the shoes in question. There is the tiniest subtle sense that 'starting chewing' might involve a few more chew marks, but I can't think of a realistic situation where exchanging the forms would produce an easily determinible difference.
Certainly in the form 'has started to X' vs 'has started Xing' I don't believe there is any difference at all: "I've started to ride to work" vs "I've started riding to work". In both cases I've ridden to work at least once, but not a large number of times (otherwise it would be an habitual action: "I ride to work").
Dylan

Usenet · Answer

Dylan Nicholson wrote on 18 May 2004:
[nq:2]1. "He started to chew his shoes." versus 2. "He ... moved his mandible in a chewing motion a few times.[/nq]
[nq:1]It can suggest that, but without any further information, the two sentences on their own convey exactly the same meaning ... chew marks, but I can't think of a realistic situation where exchanging the forms would produce an easily determinible difference.[/nq]
You deleted the two about shooting. The difference there is quite obvious and not at all subtle or tiny.
[nq:1]Certainly in the form 'has started to X' vs 'has started Xing' I don't believe there is any difference at ... least once, but not a large number of times (otherwise it would be an habitual action: "I ride to work").[/nq]
How about adding "today" to the end of both forms?

*"I've started to ride to work today".
versus
"I started to ride to work today"
versus
"I started riding to work today".
The first seems ungrammatical to me. The second seems strange to me and suggests that I didn't finish. The third seems like the beginning of an intended new habit.
I think you've chosen your example too carefully and too self- servingly. The difference between these structures may also be too subtle for you to appreciate despite your recognition above that "There is the tiniest subtle sense that 'starting chewing' might involve a few more chew marks". This is exactly the kind of subtle difference that the poster wanted to know about. And I did use "can" to indicate possibility. I think that I make a distinction in my own spoken and written language whenever such a distinction is appropriate. I do agree that there are sentences in which there is no practical difference between the two forms, but I can't think of one right now.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Start + gerund/infinitive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions