0
Stenka25 Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
"to" vs. without "to" in a sentence with ditranstive verb "pay"
The below is the original copy of "Istanbul" by Orhan Pamuk, a Nobel Laureate.
It is a useful distinction to make as we “remember” our earliest life experiences, our cradles, our baby carriages, our first steps, all as reported by our parents, stories to which we listen with the same rapt attention we might pay some brilliant tale of some other person.
The below is another copy of the book which was adapted by someone who used this sentence to make a test question.
It is a useful distinction to make as we remember our earliest life experiences reported by our parents, stories to which we listen with the same rapt attention we might pay to some brilliant tale of some other person.
As you can see, there's a difference between two. The latter has "to" followed by "pay." Since "pay" is used as ditransitive verb it has two versions as follows;
? Don't pay him any attention.
? Don't pay any attention to him.
So it seems ok in the two sentences in question with or without "to."
But when I googled the phrase so many sentences have "to" that it's really hard to find a sentence without "to." Fifteen minutes of checking out goes without a sentence without "to."
So I am becoming curious that there is something I don't know about this.
Is there any chance that the original sentence without "to" cannot be used?
If so, can you tell me why?
It is a useful distinction to make as we “remember” our earliest life experiences, our cradles, our baby carriages, our first steps, all as reported by our parents, stories to which we listen with the same rapt attention we might pay some brilliant tale of some other person.
The below is another copy of the book which was adapted by someone who used this sentence to make a test question.
It is a useful distinction to make as we remember our earliest life experiences reported by our parents, stories to which we listen with the same rapt attention we might pay to some brilliant tale of some other person.
As you can see, there's a difference between two. The latter has "to" followed by "pay." Since "pay" is used as ditransitive verb it has two versions as follows;
? Don't pay him any attention.
? Don't pay any attention to him.
So it seems ok in the two sentences in question with or without "to."
But when I googled the phrase so many sentences have "to" that it's really hard to find a sentence without "to." Fifteen minutes of checking out goes without a sentence without "to."
So I am becoming curious that there is something I don't know about this.
Is there any chance that the original sentence without "to" cannot be used?
If so, can you tell me why?
Top answer
Hi, It's fine. It's just less common, that's all. some considerations on the new New Saxon.
- Hi, It's fine.
- It's just less common, that's all.
- some considerations on the new New Saxon.
- » A Social Networking ...
- Thank you for any attention you might pay my thoughts, and also for promptly restoring my account after I was banned by a technical glitch.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
Hi,
It's fine. It's just less common, that's all.
It's fine. It's just less common, that's all.
- some considerations on the new New Saxon. » A Social Networking ...
Thank you for any attention you might pay my thoughts, and also for promptly restoring my account after I was
00
Stenka25we might pay to some brilliant tale of some other person.Be careful with "followed". The underlined words are not "to" followed by "pay". They are "pay" followed by "to".
As you can see, there's a difference between two. The latter has "to" followed by "pay."
00
0
Thanks, CJ.
I'll make sure that I use the "followed by" in a proper context.
[In this case I think it's proper to use "preceded by."]
I'll make sure that I use the "followed by" in a proper context.
[In this case I think it's proper to use "preceded by."]
00
Related Questions