Why do people say “I have known someone to do” but not “I know someone to do”?












10














The structure I have known someone to do something is apparently considered grammatical and idiomatic. Examples from Google:




I have known people to take shops, put in a few articles and, without opening the doors, to sell the premises for as much as £1,000. (New Zealand Parliament)



I have known people to temporarily lose interest in sex and believe the problem was in their marriage but later realize that it was grief.



I have known people to lose battles with brain tumours, cancer, to become disabled, and to become very ill.




In contrast, I know/knew someone to do something is not a thing that people say. Apparently you can't say "I knew some people to drink coffee around midnight.*" Why is that? What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?






phrases expressions structure







share|improve this question


















  • 4




    Good question. I believe that this is merely customary, but you almost certainly should get a better answer than that. Welcome to EL&U.
    – Robusto
    Dec 23 at 15:25






  • 1




    I know someone to fix her car is just a less common version of I know someone who can fix her car. But I have known someone to fix her car is a completely different utterance. Often, the speaker wouldn't actually be acquainted with anyone who had previously fixed her car - it just means I am aware that [at least once] in the past someone fixed her car.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 23 at 15:41






  • 1




    This construction was probably originally a calque from Latin where the verb in the matrix clause was usually in its passive past participle form. Notice also that you have "Thomas is said to frequent 4th street." but not "*They say Thomas to frequent 4th street." I'll post an answer if I can confirm this with some Latin examples!
    – jlovegren
    Dec 23 at 15:55








  • 1




    I know him to buy paintings at auctions; I know her to spend hours reading gravestones in churchyards; I know them to be fighting the government on several issues. Less familiar to the non-native speaker, but nothing special about the structure — it can work in the present tense if it is transformed properly, as in my examples.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:45








  • 1




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a false premise, as explained in my comment.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:46
















10














The structure I have known someone to do something is apparently considered grammatical and idiomatic. Examples from Google:




I have known people to take shops, put in a few articles and, without opening the doors, to sell the premises for as much as £1,000. (New Zealand Parliament)



I have known people to temporarily lose interest in sex and believe the problem was in their marriage but later realize that it was grief.



I have known people to lose battles with brain tumours, cancer, to become disabled, and to become very ill.




In contrast, I know/knew someone to do something is not a thing that people say. Apparently you can't say "I knew some people to drink coffee around midnight.*" Why is that? What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?






phrases expressions structure







share|improve this question


















  • 4




    Good question. I believe that this is merely customary, but you almost certainly should get a better answer than that. Welcome to EL&U.
    – Robusto
    Dec 23 at 15:25






  • 1




    I know someone to fix her car is just a less common version of I know someone who can fix her car. But I have known someone to fix her car is a completely different utterance. Often, the speaker wouldn't actually be acquainted with anyone who had previously fixed her car - it just means I am aware that [at least once] in the past someone fixed her car.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 23 at 15:41






  • 1




    This construction was probably originally a calque from Latin where the verb in the matrix clause was usually in its passive past participle form. Notice also that you have "Thomas is said to frequent 4th street." but not "*They say Thomas to frequent 4th street." I'll post an answer if I can confirm this with some Latin examples!
    – jlovegren
    Dec 23 at 15:55








  • 1




    I know him to buy paintings at auctions; I know her to spend hours reading gravestones in churchyards; I know them to be fighting the government on several issues. Less familiar to the non-native speaker, but nothing special about the structure — it can work in the present tense if it is transformed properly, as in my examples.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:45








  • 1




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a false premise, as explained in my comment.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:46














10












10








10







The structure I have known someone to do something is apparently considered grammatical and idiomatic. Examples from Google:




I have known people to take shops, put in a few articles and, without opening the doors, to sell the premises for as much as £1,000. (New Zealand Parliament)



I have known people to temporarily lose interest in sex and believe the problem was in their marriage but later realize that it was grief.



I have known people to lose battles with brain tumours, cancer, to become disabled, and to become very ill.




In contrast, I know/knew someone to do something is not a thing that people say. Apparently you can't say "I knew some people to drink coffee around midnight.*" Why is that? What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?






phrases expressions structure







share|improve this question













The structure I have known someone to do something is apparently considered grammatical and idiomatic. Examples from Google:




I have known people to take shops, put in a few articles and, without opening the doors, to sell the premises for as much as £1,000. (New Zealand Parliament)



I have known people to temporarily lose interest in sex and believe the problem was in their marriage but later realize that it was grief.



I have known people to lose battles with brain tumours, cancer, to become disabled, and to become very ill.




In contrast, I know/knew someone to do something is not a thing that people say. Apparently you can't say "I knew some people to drink coffee around midnight.*" Why is that? What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?






phrases expressions structure




phrases expressions structure






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Dec 23 at 15:19









L. Moneta

282114




282114








  • 4




    Good question. I believe that this is merely customary, but you almost certainly should get a better answer than that. Welcome to EL&U.
    – Robusto
    Dec 23 at 15:25






  • 1




    I know someone to fix her car is just a less common version of I know someone who can fix her car. But I have known someone to fix her car is a completely different utterance. Often, the speaker wouldn't actually be acquainted with anyone who had previously fixed her car - it just means I am aware that [at least once] in the past someone fixed her car.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 23 at 15:41






  • 1




    This construction was probably originally a calque from Latin where the verb in the matrix clause was usually in its passive past participle form. Notice also that you have "Thomas is said to frequent 4th street." but not "*They say Thomas to frequent 4th street." I'll post an answer if I can confirm this with some Latin examples!
    – jlovegren
    Dec 23 at 15:55








  • 1




    I know him to buy paintings at auctions; I know her to spend hours reading gravestones in churchyards; I know them to be fighting the government on several issues. Less familiar to the non-native speaker, but nothing special about the structure — it can work in the present tense if it is transformed properly, as in my examples.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:45








  • 1




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a false premise, as explained in my comment.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:46














  • 4




    Good question. I believe that this is merely customary, but you almost certainly should get a better answer than that. Welcome to EL&U.
    – Robusto
    Dec 23 at 15:25






  • 1




    I know someone to fix her car is just a less common version of I know someone who can fix her car. But I have known someone to fix her car is a completely different utterance. Often, the speaker wouldn't actually be acquainted with anyone who had previously fixed her car - it just means I am aware that [at least once] in the past someone fixed her car.
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 23 at 15:41






  • 1




    This construction was probably originally a calque from Latin where the verb in the matrix clause was usually in its passive past participle form. Notice also that you have "Thomas is said to frequent 4th street." but not "*They say Thomas to frequent 4th street." I'll post an answer if I can confirm this with some Latin examples!
    – jlovegren
    Dec 23 at 15:55








  • 1




    I know him to buy paintings at auctions; I know her to spend hours reading gravestones in churchyards; I know them to be fighting the government on several issues. Less familiar to the non-native speaker, but nothing special about the structure — it can work in the present tense if it is transformed properly, as in my examples.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:45








  • 1




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a false premise, as explained in my comment.
    – David
    Dec 23 at 16:46








4




4




Good question. I believe that this is merely customary, but you almost certainly should get a better answer than that. Welcome to EL&U.
– Robusto
Dec 23 at 15:25




Good question. I believe that this is merely customary, but you almost certainly should get a better answer than that. Welcome to EL&U.
– Robusto
Dec 23 at 15:25




1




1




I know someone to fix her car is just a less common version of I know someone who can fix her car. But I have known someone to fix her car is a completely different utterance. Often, the speaker wouldn't actually be acquainted with anyone who had previously fixed her car - it just means I am aware that [at least once] in the past someone fixed her car.
– FumbleFingers
Dec 23 at 15:41




I know someone to fix her car is just a less common version of I know someone who can fix her car. But I have known someone to fix her car is a completely different utterance. Often, the speaker wouldn't actually be acquainted with anyone who had previously fixed her car - it just means I am aware that [at least once] in the past someone fixed her car.
– FumbleFingers
Dec 23 at 15:41




1




1




This construction was probably originally a calque from Latin where the verb in the matrix clause was usually in its passive past participle form. Notice also that you have "Thomas is said to frequent 4th street." but not "*They say Thomas to frequent 4th street." I'll post an answer if I can confirm this with some Latin examples!
– jlovegren
Dec 23 at 15:55






This construction was probably originally a calque from Latin where the verb in the matrix clause was usually in its passive past participle form. Notice also that you have "Thomas is said to frequent 4th street." but not "*They say Thomas to frequent 4th street." I'll post an answer if I can confirm this with some Latin examples!
– jlovegren
Dec 23 at 15:55






1




1




I know him to buy paintings at auctions; I know her to spend hours reading gravestones in churchyards; I know them to be fighting the government on several issues. Less familiar to the non-native speaker, but nothing special about the structure — it can work in the present tense if it is transformed properly, as in my examples.
– David
Dec 23 at 16:45






I know him to buy paintings at auctions; I know her to spend hours reading gravestones in churchyards; I know them to be fighting the government on several issues. Less familiar to the non-native speaker, but nothing special about the structure — it can work in the present tense if it is transformed properly, as in my examples.
– David
Dec 23 at 16:45






1




1




I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a false premise, as explained in my comment.
– David
Dec 23 at 16:46




I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is based on a false premise, as explained in my comment.
– David
Dec 23 at 16:46










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














There is a difference in what you want to imply. Have known communicates that you are aware of at least some cases in which your statement has been true in the past. (It may or may not be true currently). Know means you think it's true in general.



Compare:




I've known him to get up early in the morning (= He's capable of it. He might do it again, even if he has possibly stopped.)




to




I know him to get up early in the morning (= He ususally does it.)




The second is in the same vein as "I know him to be a nice guy."






share|improve this answer























  • While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 17:50












  • That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 17:54












  • "Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 18:18












  • "What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 18:31








  • 1




    @FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 21:37



















0














To answer why is a context about time.



If I say, “I have known someone to do”, then I’m reflecting on my experience, memory and past. The details of such a context tend to be abstract more often than not.



For example: “I have known John Doe to go fishing on Sundays.” This is reference of memory over a long period of time. John typically goes fishing on Sundays that I can remember over the past 5 years. The sentence merely shortens time as an abstraction of unknown amount of time.



On the other hand, “I know someone who may fish with you” is more in the present moment or immediate future.



For example: You are going fishing this afternoon or tomorrow? Well I know someone who may join you.






share|improve this answer





















  • This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:07



















-1














Comparing with the more familiar 'I go to the shops' and 'I have gone to the shops', this has the form of a perfect past, and the equivalent present would be:




I know people take shops, ...



I know people temporarily lose interest in sex ...



I know people lose battles ...




Just like you have 'I used to eat strawberries' vs 'I eat strawberries', when the construct takes the form of the past (I would say that 'I have known' is describing past experience, that is certainly the meaning it always has had to me, I do not see it describing present events as Janus suggests below, a pattern of behaviour is established over past time and so it takes the form of past perfect). Many constructs use the infinitive when voiced in the past or in the abstract but not in the present, this one isn't special.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:04










  • @JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
    – Pete Kirkham
    Dec 25 at 0:27






  • 1




    No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 25 at 0:33











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478300%2fwhy-do-people-say-i-have-known-someone-to-do-but-not-i-know-someone-to-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6














There is a difference in what you want to imply. Have known communicates that you are aware of at least some cases in which your statement has been true in the past. (It may or may not be true currently). Know means you think it's true in general.



Compare:




I've known him to get up early in the morning (= He's capable of it. He might do it again, even if he has possibly stopped.)




to




I know him to get up early in the morning (= He ususally does it.)




The second is in the same vein as "I know him to be a nice guy."






share|improve this answer























  • While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 17:50












  • That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 17:54












  • "Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 18:18












  • "What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 18:31








  • 1




    @FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 21:37
















6














There is a difference in what you want to imply. Have known communicates that you are aware of at least some cases in which your statement has been true in the past. (It may or may not be true currently). Know means you think it's true in general.



Compare:




I've known him to get up early in the morning (= He's capable of it. He might do it again, even if he has possibly stopped.)




to




I know him to get up early in the morning (= He ususally does it.)




The second is in the same vein as "I know him to be a nice guy."






share|improve this answer























  • While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 17:50












  • That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 17:54












  • "Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 18:18












  • "What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 18:31








  • 1




    @FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 21:37














6












6








6






There is a difference in what you want to imply. Have known communicates that you are aware of at least some cases in which your statement has been true in the past. (It may or may not be true currently). Know means you think it's true in general.



Compare:




I've known him to get up early in the morning (= He's capable of it. He might do it again, even if he has possibly stopped.)




to




I know him to get up early in the morning (= He ususally does it.)




The second is in the same vein as "I know him to be a nice guy."






share|improve this answer














There is a difference in what you want to imply. Have known communicates that you are aware of at least some cases in which your statement has been true in the past. (It may or may not be true currently). Know means you think it's true in general.



Compare:




I've known him to get up early in the morning (= He's capable of it. He might do it again, even if he has possibly stopped.)




to




I know him to get up early in the morning (= He ususally does it.)




The second is in the same vein as "I know him to be a nice guy."







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 23 at 17:59

























answered Dec 23 at 17:45









Tushar Raj

18.6k864112




18.6k864112












  • While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 17:50












  • That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 17:54












  • "Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 18:18












  • "What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 18:31








  • 1




    @FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 21:37


















  • While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 17:50












  • That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 17:54












  • "Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 18:18












  • "What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
    – Tushar Raj
    Dec 23 at 18:31








  • 1




    @FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
    – L. Moneta
    Dec 23 at 21:37
















While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
– L. Moneta
Dec 23 at 17:50






While I agree with the distinction you make with tenses, that is not the crux of my question. The fact that I know him to get up early returns exactly naught troubles me.
– L. Moneta
Dec 23 at 17:50














That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
– Tushar Raj
Dec 23 at 17:54






That's way too narrow. Here. Contrast sentences like "I know him to be rich/evil/sick" with "I've known him to be rich/evil/sick."
– Tushar Raj
Dec 23 at 17:54














"Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
– L. Moneta
Dec 23 at 18:18






"Know someone/something to be" is a different story. As evidenced by the title, there is no question there to begin with.
– L. Moneta
Dec 23 at 18:18














"What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
– Tushar Raj
Dec 23 at 18:31






"What is special about the structure I have known someone to do something that validates it as grammatical?" Nothing. Both constructs are grammatical and have distinct meanings, as I have demonstrated. Evidently one of them is significantly less popular, but usage patterns have nothing to do with grammatical validity. If you don't like be rich, you can try similar experiments with things like get angry when... or have patience and so on. Your OP was about grammar and meaning, so I answered keeping that in mind. I can't vouch for usage.
– Tushar Raj
Dec 23 at 18:31






1




1




@FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
– L. Moneta
Dec 23 at 21:37




@FumbleFingers This is a very helpful comment.
– L. Moneta
Dec 23 at 21:37













0














To answer why is a context about time.



If I say, “I have known someone to do”, then I’m reflecting on my experience, memory and past. The details of such a context tend to be abstract more often than not.



For example: “I have known John Doe to go fishing on Sundays.” This is reference of memory over a long period of time. John typically goes fishing on Sundays that I can remember over the past 5 years. The sentence merely shortens time as an abstraction of unknown amount of time.



On the other hand, “I know someone who may fish with you” is more in the present moment or immediate future.



For example: You are going fishing this afternoon or tomorrow? Well I know someone who may join you.






share|improve this answer





















  • This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:07
















0














To answer why is a context about time.



If I say, “I have known someone to do”, then I’m reflecting on my experience, memory and past. The details of such a context tend to be abstract more often than not.



For example: “I have known John Doe to go fishing on Sundays.” This is reference of memory over a long period of time. John typically goes fishing on Sundays that I can remember over the past 5 years. The sentence merely shortens time as an abstraction of unknown amount of time.



On the other hand, “I know someone who may fish with you” is more in the present moment or immediate future.



For example: You are going fishing this afternoon or tomorrow? Well I know someone who may join you.






share|improve this answer





















  • This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:07














0












0








0






To answer why is a context about time.



If I say, “I have known someone to do”, then I’m reflecting on my experience, memory and past. The details of such a context tend to be abstract more often than not.



For example: “I have known John Doe to go fishing on Sundays.” This is reference of memory over a long period of time. John typically goes fishing on Sundays that I can remember over the past 5 years. The sentence merely shortens time as an abstraction of unknown amount of time.



On the other hand, “I know someone who may fish with you” is more in the present moment or immediate future.



For example: You are going fishing this afternoon or tomorrow? Well I know someone who may join you.






share|improve this answer












To answer why is a context about time.



If I say, “I have known someone to do”, then I’m reflecting on my experience, memory and past. The details of such a context tend to be abstract more often than not.



For example: “I have known John Doe to go fishing on Sundays.” This is reference of memory over a long period of time. John typically goes fishing on Sundays that I can remember over the past 5 years. The sentence merely shortens time as an abstraction of unknown amount of time.



On the other hand, “I know someone who may fish with you” is more in the present moment or immediate future.



For example: You are going fishing this afternoon or tomorrow? Well I know someone who may join you.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 23 at 17:42









James Axsom

583




583












  • This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:07


















  • This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:07
















This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 24 at 9:07




This doesn’t really explain anything – it’s just a description of how the phrase is used, not a reason why. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to use the same construction to express your experience in the present tense. “I’ve known John to go fishing on Sundays” means roughly “I’ve known for a while that John often goes fishing on Sundays”; so why not “I know that John often goes fishing on Sundays” in the present tense? That is the question which was asked.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 24 at 9:07











-1














Comparing with the more familiar 'I go to the shops' and 'I have gone to the shops', this has the form of a perfect past, and the equivalent present would be:




I know people take shops, ...



I know people temporarily lose interest in sex ...



I know people lose battles ...




Just like you have 'I used to eat strawberries' vs 'I eat strawberries', when the construct takes the form of the past (I would say that 'I have known' is describing past experience, that is certainly the meaning it always has had to me, I do not see it describing present events as Janus suggests below, a pattern of behaviour is established over past time and so it takes the form of past perfect). Many constructs use the infinitive when voiced in the past or in the abstract but not in the present, this one isn't special.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:04










  • @JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
    – Pete Kirkham
    Dec 25 at 0:27






  • 1




    No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 25 at 0:33
















-1














Comparing with the more familiar 'I go to the shops' and 'I have gone to the shops', this has the form of a perfect past, and the equivalent present would be:




I know people take shops, ...



I know people temporarily lose interest in sex ...



I know people lose battles ...




Just like you have 'I used to eat strawberries' vs 'I eat strawberries', when the construct takes the form of the past (I would say that 'I have known' is describing past experience, that is certainly the meaning it always has had to me, I do not see it describing present events as Janus suggests below, a pattern of behaviour is established over past time and so it takes the form of past perfect). Many constructs use the infinitive when voiced in the past or in the abstract but not in the present, this one isn't special.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:04










  • @JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
    – Pete Kirkham
    Dec 25 at 0:27






  • 1




    No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 25 at 0:33














-1












-1








-1






Comparing with the more familiar 'I go to the shops' and 'I have gone to the shops', this has the form of a perfect past, and the equivalent present would be:




I know people take shops, ...



I know people temporarily lose interest in sex ...



I know people lose battles ...




Just like you have 'I used to eat strawberries' vs 'I eat strawberries', when the construct takes the form of the past (I would say that 'I have known' is describing past experience, that is certainly the meaning it always has had to me, I do not see it describing present events as Janus suggests below, a pattern of behaviour is established over past time and so it takes the form of past perfect). Many constructs use the infinitive when voiced in the past or in the abstract but not in the present, this one isn't special.






share|improve this answer














Comparing with the more familiar 'I go to the shops' and 'I have gone to the shops', this has the form of a perfect past, and the equivalent present would be:




I know people take shops, ...



I know people temporarily lose interest in sex ...



I know people lose battles ...




Just like you have 'I used to eat strawberries' vs 'I eat strawberries', when the construct takes the form of the past (I would say that 'I have known' is describing past experience, that is certainly the meaning it always has had to me, I do not see it describing present events as Janus suggests below, a pattern of behaviour is established over past time and so it takes the form of past perfect). Many constructs use the infinitive when voiced in the past or in the abstract but not in the present, this one isn't special.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 25 at 21:16

























answered Dec 23 at 23:25









Pete Kirkham

28217




28217








  • 1




    This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:04










  • @JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
    – Pete Kirkham
    Dec 25 at 0:27






  • 1




    No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 25 at 0:33














  • 1




    This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 24 at 9:04










  • @JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
    – Pete Kirkham
    Dec 25 at 0:27






  • 1




    No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 25 at 0:33








1




1




This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 24 at 9:04




This is a completely different construction which isn’t really relevant to the question. Your examples all use complement clauses (“I know that X is the case”), whereas people is the direct object in the original sentences. The two constructions are fundamentally different – they’re also not limited to a particular tense (“I knew that people lose battles”, “I’ve always known that people lose battles” v. “I know these people to have great courage”).
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 24 at 9:04












@JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
– Pete Kirkham
Dec 25 at 0:27




@JanusBahsJacquet my understanding is that 'I have known' is the past of 'I know', how would you transfer the original construction into the present?
– Pete Kirkham
Dec 25 at 0:27




1




1




No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 25 at 0:33




No, ‘I have known’ is the present tense of a perfect construction built with the verb know; the past tense would be ‘I knew’. Transferring the examples in the question yields exactly the constructions also mentioned in the question and in my previous comment: “I know people to take shops / temporarily lose interest in sex / lose battles”. The whole issue is that this is ungrammatical (at least to most speakers), for whatever reason, except with certain verbs.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 25 at 0:33


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478300%2fwhy-do-people-say-i-have-known-someone-to-do-but-not-i-know-someone-to-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How did Captain America manage to do this?

Image
2 How does Captain America lift Thor's hammer? In Avengers: Age of Ultron , he is not worthy but how he is worthy in this film. plot-explanation marvel-cinematic-universe avengers-age-of-ultron avengers-endgame share | improve this question edited 19 mins ago A J ♦ 42.7k 16 229 246 asked 39 mins ago Andi AR Andi AR 325 1 4 14
Read more

迪纳利

Image
迪纳利峰 位于迪纳利国家公园和保留区的迪纳利峰（旧名麦金利峰） 最高点 海拔 20,237英尺（6,168米）   NGVD 29 . [1] [2] 相對高度 20,073英尺（6,118米） 列表 各洲最高峰列表 特独立山峰 各国最高点列表 美国最高点  排名第一 [3] 坐标 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley ) 坐标： 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley )   地理 位置   美國阿拉斯加州迪纳利自治市镇 迪纳利国家公园和保留区 山脈 阿拉斯加山脉 攀山 首次登頂 （ 英语 ： First ascent ） 1913年6月7日 哈德逊·史塔克 哈里·卡斯坦斯 沃尔特·哈珀 罗伯特·塔特姆 最簡路線 西坡路线（攀登冰川/雪） 迪纳利 （北阿萨巴斯卡语支、 英语： Denali ， / d ᵻ ˈ n ɑː l i / ，直译“高山”），1917年至2015年官方名称为 麦金利山 （另译作 麦金利峰 ， 英语： Mount McKinley ），位于阿拉斯加州东南部、阿拉斯加山脉中段，海拔6194米，是北美洲最高峰，也是美国的最高峰。它的俄语名称是 Большая Гора ， 罗马化：Bolshaya Gora ，意思是“大山”。 迪纳利山地区拥有变幻莫测的高山风、典型的北极植被以及野生动植物。这里大部分地区终年积雪，山间经常浓雾不断，雾气在皑皑白雪中缭绕弥漫时，几百米之外的景物便不可见。夏季，迪纳利山的青青山坡上鲜花盛开，紫色的杜鹃和精巧的铃状石南花随处可见。迪纳利山还是世界登山爱好者的汇集之地。每年5月到7月有数百人登山，只有一半不到的人能登顶成功。一次登山约花3个星期。 2015年8月31日，美國政府宣佈將山名由“麦金利山”改回原名“迪纳利山”。美國內政部發表聲
Read more

南乌拉尔铁路局

Image
南乌拉尔铁路局 Южно-Уральская железная дорога 成立 1934年1月4日 国家   蘇聯（1934年—1991年）   俄羅斯（1991年—） 总部 车里雅宾斯克 隶属 俄罗斯铁路股份公司 路局代码 80 铁路里程 4,934.9公里 奖项 网址 http://yuzd.rzd.ru/ 查 论 编 南乌拉尔铁路局 （俄语： Южно-Уральская железная дорога ， 羅馬化： Yuzhno-Uralskaya zheleznaya doroga ，简称 ЮУЖД ）是俄罗斯铁路股份公司属下的铁路管理局之一，总部位于车里雅宾斯克，负责管辖俄罗斯联邦乌拉尔南部地区的铁路系统，范围包括奥伦堡州、车里雅宾斯克州、库尔干州的大部分铁路，以及萨马拉州、斯维尔德洛夫斯克州、巴什科尔托斯坦共和国的少部分铁路，并有部分铁路延伸至或穿过哈萨克斯坦境内。南乌拉尔铁路局的营业里程为4,934.9公里，与伏尔加铁路局、古比雪夫铁路局、斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局、西西伯利亚铁路局相邻，并与南方的哈萨克斯坦铁路连接。 外部链接 （俄文） Южно-Уральская железная дорога — филиал ОАО РЖД （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（一） （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（二） 查 论 编 俄罗斯铁路（集团）股份公司 十月铁路局 · 莫斯科铁路局 · 北高加索铁路局 · 高尔基铁路局 · 古比雪夫铁路局 · 北方铁路局 · 伏尔加铁路局 · 东南铁路局 · 斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局 · 南乌拉尔铁路局 · 西西伯利亚铁路局 · 克拉斯诺亚尔斯克铁路局 · 东西伯利亚铁路局 · 后贝加尔铁路局 · 远东铁路局 · 加里宁格勒铁路局 This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
Read more