Can I omit “to be” in passive infinitive?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
For example,
It's fine for the streets to be winding and the street network varied.
(in this case, to be is repeated in both clauses so it's okay to omit to be in second clause)It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network varied.
(But, when first infinitive is active and second is passive, can I still omit to be?
I feel I should put be before varied )
Waiting for your professional advice. Thank you.
passive-voice infinitives
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 5 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
For example,
It's fine for the streets to be winding and the street network varied.
(in this case, to be is repeated in both clauses so it's okay to omit to be in second clause)It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network varied.
(But, when first infinitive is active and second is passive, can I still omit to be?
I feel I should put be before varied )
Waiting for your professional advice. Thank you.
passive-voice infinitives
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 5 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
Yes. This is an example of the rule of Conjunction Reduction, which deletes repeated material in conjoined clauses. Notice that it's fine for has been deleted, like to be, from the original compound sentence It's fine for the streets to be winding and it's fine for the street network to be varied.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 3:24
Could you take a look at it again? First one says "to be winding" and second is "to wind". So first one seems fine to me because like you said to be is repeated, but the second one seems wrong because it's conjoined of active and passive. I feel "be" shouldn't be removed. Is that right?
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:45
my question was how to make "varied" part right when it's "to wind"
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:58
1
In the second example, use It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network vary.
– Davo
Dec 20 '17 at 12:51
2
The second sentence is ungrammatical, since the first clause doesn't contain to be and therefore it isn't deletable in the second clause by Conjunction Reduction, which only deletes repeated material. The second sentence should end ..and the street network to be varied. Note that the infinitive complementizer for is still deletable, however.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 15:46
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
For example,
It's fine for the streets to be winding and the street network varied.
(in this case, to be is repeated in both clauses so it's okay to omit to be in second clause)It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network varied.
(But, when first infinitive is active and second is passive, can I still omit to be?
I feel I should put be before varied )
Waiting for your professional advice. Thank you.
passive-voice infinitives
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
For example,
It's fine for the streets to be winding and the street network varied.
(in this case, to be is repeated in both clauses so it's okay to omit to be in second clause)It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network varied.
(But, when first infinitive is active and second is passive, can I still omit to be?
I feel I should put be before varied )
Waiting for your professional advice. Thank you.
passive-voice infinitives
passive-voice infinitives
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
edited Dec 20 '17 at 3:15
John Lawler
83.1k6112325
83.1k6112325
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
asked Dec 20 '17 at 2:30
Olivia Kim
111
111
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 5 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 5 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
Yes. This is an example of the rule of Conjunction Reduction, which deletes repeated material in conjoined clauses. Notice that it's fine for has been deleted, like to be, from the original compound sentence It's fine for the streets to be winding and it's fine for the street network to be varied.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 3:24
Could you take a look at it again? First one says "to be winding" and second is "to wind". So first one seems fine to me because like you said to be is repeated, but the second one seems wrong because it's conjoined of active and passive. I feel "be" shouldn't be removed. Is that right?
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:45
my question was how to make "varied" part right when it's "to wind"
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:58
1
In the second example, use It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network vary.
– Davo
Dec 20 '17 at 12:51
2
The second sentence is ungrammatical, since the first clause doesn't contain to be and therefore it isn't deletable in the second clause by Conjunction Reduction, which only deletes repeated material. The second sentence should end ..and the street network to be varied. Note that the infinitive complementizer for is still deletable, however.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 15:46
|
show 1 more comment
1
Yes. This is an example of the rule of Conjunction Reduction, which deletes repeated material in conjoined clauses. Notice that it's fine for has been deleted, like to be, from the original compound sentence It's fine for the streets to be winding and it's fine for the street network to be varied.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 3:24
Could you take a look at it again? First one says "to be winding" and second is "to wind". So first one seems fine to me because like you said to be is repeated, but the second one seems wrong because it's conjoined of active and passive. I feel "be" shouldn't be removed. Is that right?
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:45
my question was how to make "varied" part right when it's "to wind"
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:58
1
In the second example, use It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network vary.
– Davo
Dec 20 '17 at 12:51
2
The second sentence is ungrammatical, since the first clause doesn't contain to be and therefore it isn't deletable in the second clause by Conjunction Reduction, which only deletes repeated material. The second sentence should end ..and the street network to be varied. Note that the infinitive complementizer for is still deletable, however.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 15:46
1
1
Yes. This is an example of the rule of Conjunction Reduction, which deletes repeated material in conjoined clauses. Notice that it's fine for has been deleted, like to be, from the original compound sentence It's fine for the streets to be winding and it's fine for the street network to be varied.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 3:24
Yes. This is an example of the rule of Conjunction Reduction, which deletes repeated material in conjoined clauses. Notice that it's fine for has been deleted, like to be, from the original compound sentence It's fine for the streets to be winding and it's fine for the street network to be varied.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 3:24
Could you take a look at it again? First one says "to be winding" and second is "to wind". So first one seems fine to me because like you said to be is repeated, but the second one seems wrong because it's conjoined of active and passive. I feel "be" shouldn't be removed. Is that right?
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:45
Could you take a look at it again? First one says "to be winding" and second is "to wind". So first one seems fine to me because like you said to be is repeated, but the second one seems wrong because it's conjoined of active and passive. I feel "be" shouldn't be removed. Is that right?
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:45
my question was how to make "varied" part right when it's "to wind"
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:58
my question was how to make "varied" part right when it's "to wind"
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:58
1
1
In the second example, use It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network vary.
– Davo
Dec 20 '17 at 12:51
In the second example, use It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network vary.
– Davo
Dec 20 '17 at 12:51
2
2
The second sentence is ungrammatical, since the first clause doesn't contain to be and therefore it isn't deletable in the second clause by Conjunction Reduction, which only deletes repeated material. The second sentence should end ..and the street network to be varied. Note that the infinitive complementizer for is still deletable, however.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 15:46
The second sentence is ungrammatical, since the first clause doesn't contain to be and therefore it isn't deletable in the second clause by Conjunction Reduction, which only deletes repeated material. The second sentence should end ..and the street network to be varied. Note that the infinitive complementizer for is still deletable, however.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 15:46
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Your first example should be:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and for the street network to be varied.
The second "to be" could be omitted, if the associated noun is the same. For example:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and varied.
Your second example should have the "to be":
It's fine for the streets to wind and for the street network to be varied.
But generally this mix sounds a little off. So, you should prefer to not use a mix.
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Your first example should be:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and for the street network to be varied.
The second "to be" could be omitted, if the associated noun is the same. For example:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and varied.
Your second example should have the "to be":
It's fine for the streets to wind and for the street network to be varied.
But generally this mix sounds a little off. So, you should prefer to not use a mix.
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Your first example should be:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and for the street network to be varied.
The second "to be" could be omitted, if the associated noun is the same. For example:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and varied.
Your second example should have the "to be":
It's fine for the streets to wind and for the street network to be varied.
But generally this mix sounds a little off. So, you should prefer to not use a mix.
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Your first example should be:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and for the street network to be varied.
The second "to be" could be omitted, if the associated noun is the same. For example:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and varied.
Your second example should have the "to be":
It's fine for the streets to wind and for the street network to be varied.
But generally this mix sounds a little off. So, you should prefer to not use a mix.
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
Your first example should be:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and for the street network to be varied.
The second "to be" could be omitted, if the associated noun is the same. For example:
It's fine for the streets to be winding and varied.
Your second example should have the "to be":
It's fine for the streets to wind and for the street network to be varied.
But generally this mix sounds a little off. So, you should prefer to not use a mix.
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
edited Dec 20 '17 at 2:47
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
answered Dec 20 '17 at 2:39
Geshode
2847
2847
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423032%2fcan-i-omit-to-be-in-passive-infinitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
Yes. This is an example of the rule of Conjunction Reduction, which deletes repeated material in conjoined clauses. Notice that it's fine for has been deleted, like to be, from the original compound sentence It's fine for the streets to be winding and it's fine for the street network to be varied.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 3:24
Could you take a look at it again? First one says "to be winding" and second is "to wind". So first one seems fine to me because like you said to be is repeated, but the second one seems wrong because it's conjoined of active and passive. I feel "be" shouldn't be removed. Is that right?
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:45
my question was how to make "varied" part right when it's "to wind"
– Olivia Kim
Dec 20 '17 at 4:58
1
In the second example, use It's fine for the streets to wind and the street network vary.
– Davo
Dec 20 '17 at 12:51
2
The second sentence is ungrammatical, since the first clause doesn't contain to be and therefore it isn't deletable in the second clause by Conjunction Reduction, which only deletes repeated material. The second sentence should end ..and the street network to be varied. Note that the infinitive complementizer for is still deletable, however.
– John Lawler
Dec 20 '17 at 15:46