| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: grammar q |
 |
|
Hey grammar mavens, can you lend some insight on this:
A. All you have to do is know where you are going.
B. All you have to do is to know where you are going.
How to explain that A is correct? Also, is B wrong?
Looking for something more substantive than "just because."
Thx for any help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: grammar q |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
Hey grammar mavens, can you lend some insight on this:
A. All you have to do is know where you are going.
B. All you have to do is to know where you are going.
How to explain that A is correct? Also, is B wrong? |
I don't see a difference between A and B aside from the fact that in B the infinitival marker to is null, which is fine in the context that you've provided.
[1] All you have to do is play your cards right.
[2] All you have to do is to play your cards right.
[3] All you have to do is arrive on time.
[4] All you have to do is to arrive on time.
I prefer A, [1] and [3], but B, [2] and [4] are grammatical sentences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Thiuda, you confirm my thinking. I did a quick google on grammar "all you need to do is" & found no direct input but it was clear that maybe 98% of entries used only the bare verb & the remainder included "to."
I'd guess parsing the structure further would get very abstruse, for my highly advanced Korean inquirer & probably me too! But if anyone wants to take a further stab at it, I'd appreciate it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I suppose the second 'to' can just be assumed, not necessary, is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
| I'd guess parsing the structure further would get very abstruse, for my highly advanced Korean inquirer & probably me too! But if anyone wants to take a further stab at it, I'd appreciate it. |
OK, just for fun, I'll take a stab at it.
| schwa wrote: |
| A. All you have to do is know where you are going. |
[TP [DP [D All] [N you]] [T' [T Pres] [VP [V have] [TP [T to] [VP [V do] [TP [T Pres] [VP [V is] [TP [T �] [VP [V know] [CP [DP_i where] [TP [DP you] [T' [T are] [VP [V going][t_i]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
| schwa wrote: |
| B. All you have to do is to know where you are going. |
[TP [DP [D All] [N you]] [T' [T Pres] [VP [V have] [TP [T to] [VP [V do] [TP [T Pres] [VP [V is] [TP [T to] [VP [V know] [CP [DP_i where] [TP [DP you] [T' [T are] [VP [V going][t_i]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
The above are phrase structure trees in bracketed notation, but if you want to see a graphical representation of the trees, go to http://ironcreek.net/phpsyntaxtree/ and insert the bracketed trees above into the field at the top of the page. If you click on the tree after generating it, it will download as a jpg. You can then print out the trees after inserting the graphics into a word document, and use the print out as a visual aid in showing how the sentences are identical.
You can see quite clearly, in the graphical representations of the sentences, that there are no differences in their structures, because in A the infinitival marker to is represented by a null form of the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Again, thanks. Nice trees! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
