To explain vs. to be explained

Question

Dear Forum Users,Could anyone please explain the difference between:1. This notion is difficult to explain by a single definition.2. This notion is difficult to be expalined by a single definition.Are they both correct?Thank you.Pal

JaxTeller · Accepted Answer

I would personally use number 1, because it sounds better in my ears. I believe they are both correct though.

Palinkasocsi · Answer

Thank you Emreorhan.

Pal

Eesah · Answer

In the first case there should be someone in order to use "to explain". To explain will be used in the following example

It is difficult for him to explain this notion

Therefore, grammatically the second case is correct. To be explained

JaxTeller · Answer

thanks good to know!

Khoff · Answer

No, no, wait!

This notion is difficult to explain. -- This sentence is fine. It can be transformed into this:

To explain this notion is difficult.

It is difficult to explain this notion. -- Also fine.

Explaining this notion is difficult. -- Equally fine.

This notion is difficult to be explained. -- Not correct. It would mean something like:

"to be explained this notion is difficult" -- which does not work.

I can't explain very well why the sentence in blue is incorrect, but I'm quite sure that it is. I'll try to find someone else to come explain.

JaxTeller · Answer

cool thanks!

Mister Micawber · Answer

As khoff says, the passive is not possible in this structure:

(X) This notion is difficult to be explained.

(X) This hammer is heavy to be lifted.

(X) The Eiffel Tower is high to be climbed.

I don't know why except that, again as khoff says, the sentences cannot be restructured with introductory 'it' either:

(X) It is difficult to be explained this notion.

(X) It is heavy to be lifted this hammer.

(X) It is high to be climbed the Eiffel Tower.

'It', as you can see, becomes not an introductory, existential 'it', but a referent to the subject (notion, hammer, tower), which cannot appear together in the same clause.

Interestingly, a comparative structure works quite well:

This notion is too difficult to be explained.

This hammer is not too heavy to be lifted.

The Eiffel Tower is too high to be climbed.

None of this, unfortunately, answers the question posed.

Eesah · Answer

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I thought it is OK to use passive here.

CalifJim · Answer

PalinkasocsiAre they both correct?

No. Only the first is correct.

It's ungrammatical to put a passive infinitive after a "tough" adjective.

The "tough" adjectives are easy, hard, difficult, simple, tough, and impossible. Some writers add others, for example fun.

The debates about the underlying structures of 'tough' adjectives are endless in the linguistic literature, but fortunately it's not necessary to know all of that if you just accept that this is just the way these adjectives work.

One of the factors that enters into the debates is the fact that the 'tough' adjectives have an 'object reading' for the infinitival.

This problem is simple to solve. (this problem is the object of to solve.)

[Contrast with how other adjectives might work:

Theresa was eager to help. (Theresa is the subject of to help.)

This is called a 'subject reading' for the infinitival.]

____________________

This is by no means the end of the story, because there are other adjectives (other than the 'tough' adjectives) which are also ungrammatical with a passive infinitive. Whether they can be put in an "it" structure may also play into it.

This hammer is heavy to lift.

*It is heavy to lift this hammer.

*This hammer is heavy to be lifted.

CJ

Palinkasocsi · Answer

Thanks for all the replies!

Pal

To explain vs. to be explained

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions