# all you have to do is being / (to) be?



## Rose_spain

I'm not sure if this is correct:

*"All you have to do is being yourself, and dont let anyone change it"*

Thanks!


----------



## donbill

All you have to do is _*be*_ yourself, and not let anyone change you/ not let anyone change that. (Eso es lo que diría yo, pero espera otras ideas.)


----------



## Rose_spain

Muchas gracias


----------



## capitas

Hi Don!, Hi Rose!.
There's a song that says "all you have to do is dream", but really, to describe the action, shouldn't it have to be "dreaming" (being, this case)?


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> Hi Don!, Hi Rose!.
> There's a song that says "all you have to do is dream", but really, to describe the action, shouldn't it have to be "dreaming" (being, this case)?



Well, capitas, you've posed a question I can't answer!

_*Dreaming is all you have to do *_and *All you have to do is dream* sound fine to me, but _*All you have to do is dreaming*_ does not.

_*All you have to do is dream*_.
_*All you have to do is to dream.*_
_*Dream is all you have to do.*_-

Some wise preceptista will explain it to us.

Saludos


----------



## blasita

Hello.

No, in my opinion, _being_ is not correct here; it should be: 'All you have to do is_ (to) be_ yourself.' This structure is kind of a cleft sentence; some grammarians call this particular one an 'all-cleft'. In cleft sentences, you use a bare infinitive (an infinitive without 'to') or an infinitive, but not a gerund.

'Cleft' means 'divided'; a cleft sentence is one where a single message has been divided/split into two clauses. Cleft sentences are used to help us focus on a particular part of the sentence and to emphasise what we want to say by introducing it/builiding up to it with a kind of relative clause. Examples:

_It_ was John who called./_It_'s usually the children who say 'Mum, can I have a dog?'
_What_ I wanted to buy was a Porsche._/What_ you should do is _(to) study_ these examples before doing the exercises.

In e.g.: '_All_ you ever do is complain about the neighbours', you can say  'Complaining about the neighbours is all ...', but here 'complaining´ is a gerund, a verb used like a noun, in this case the subject of the sentence. But this is not a cleft sentence.

Sorry, a bit long.

Hope this helps.  Saludos.


----------



## capitas

Thank you, Blasita.
I know  sometimes there are differences between English and Spanish very hard to deal with.
Todo lo que necesitas es soñar/soñar es todo lo que necesitas.
All you need is Love/dream - Dream/Love (ing) is all you need
To my clumsy Spanish mind, It seems to me that they four mean the same. What do you think?
I'll keep my not understanding, and using, as you said, All I need is believe, even if I don't understand why.
Thenk you again, Blasita.


----------



## blasita

You're very welcome, Capitas.

Yes, I agree, they mean the same;  _All you need is love_ (=Love is all you need), but what I'm trying to say is that it´s a question of emphasis (cf. 'I need love'). The meaning can be expressed by a simple sentence, but cleft sentences are just a kind of grammar structure we can use.

We put everything into a sort of relative clause except the words we want to emphasise. Let's take another example: All (that) I did was tell him the truth.

Well, this is my try. Por favor: no dudéis en corregirme cualquier cosa, que todos estamos aprendiendo, y a ver si alguien más se anima a dar su opinión. Gracias.

Saludos.


----------



## capitas

blasita said:


> You're very welcome, Capitas.
> 
> We put everything into a sort of relative clause except the words we want to emphasise. Let's take another example: All (that) I did was tell him the truth.


Hi, Blasita.
My point is:
All (that) I did was tell him the truth.
Tell (ing) him the truth was All (that) I did. 
They both emphasize the same, don't they?


----------



## SevenDays

*Being* suggests something that is already happening (in progress), but that goes against the essence of the sentence, which refers to a situation that is to happen in the future (from the perspective of the speaker). "To" in "to do" therefore plays a dual role: it marks the infinitive (to do) and points toward the future (and in doing so "to" retains some of its nature as a preposition):
_All you have to do is *be* yourself
_(Where "be" has the force of a soft imperative.)

"Be," in the subject complement slot, functions as a transitive lexical verb (a verb with inherent meaning), which takes the complement "yourself." This "be" differs from the copula be "is," which is largely devoid of meaning and acts as an equal sign: _All you have to do* is *be yourself. 

*Being* yourself is all you have to do_ is, I think, marginally acceptable; the verbal noun "being" properly functions as subject; the present sense of _*being*_ (in progress now, but a now that extends into the future) is the starting point of the sentence and may therefore semantically outweight the abstract future sense expressed in the subject complement. It's hard, and perhaps impossible, to tell where the _verbal_ "being" ends and the_ noun _"being" begins (and vice versa), which is why some simply call this the "ing" form of "be." But I wonder if the natives would accept_ Being yourself is all you have to do
_
Cheers


----------



## blasita

capitas said:


> All (that) I did was tell him the truth.
> Tell (ing) him the truth was All (that) I did.
> They both emphasize the same, don't they? *Yes, they do, in my opinion (but I'd rather use the first one).*



I´ve got a question myself. I'd actually say 'Tell_ing_ ...', not 'Tell ...', but in Donbill's last example: 'Dream ...', so it must be right too. I think that a bare infinitive cannot go at the beginning of the sentence, am I right?

Saludos.

Edit: sent at the same time, SevenDays; I haven't read your post yet.


----------



## Eltraductor

Rose_spain said:


> *"All you have to do is being yourself, and dont let anyone change it" *



"All you have to do is be yourself, and don't change for anyone."
"All you have to do is be yourself, and don't let anyone change that."
"All you have to do is be yourself, and don't let anyone let you think otherwise." etc.

Espero que te sirvan,
Eltraductor


----------



## Rose_spain

Muchas gracias a todos! muy buenas explicaciones! 

Thank you very much!

Saludos


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> I´ve got a question myself. I'd actually say 'Tell_ing_ ...', not 'Tell ...', but in Donbill's last example: 'Dream ...', so it must be right too. I think that a bare infinitive cannot go at the beginning of the sentence, am I right?
> 
> Saludos.
> 
> Edit: sent at the same time, SevenDays; I haven't read your post yet.



Good questions, blasita! It's interesting! I'd say 'tell', not 'telling'. "Tell him the truth was all I did." = "All I did was tell him the truth." I must confess that I don't know if that's stylistically or grammatically the preferred manner of expression; it just comes quite naturally to me. And about the bare infinitive at the beginning of the sentence...hmmm. I'll bet SevenDays, Agró or El Profe will have the answer. The bare infinitive would have ruined Hamlet's quote: *"Be or not be: that is the question."

Saludos


----------



## blasita

donbill said:


> I'd say 'tell', not 'telling'. "Tell him the truth was all I did." = "All I did was tell him the truth." I must confess that I don't know if that's stylistically or grammatically the preferred manner of expression; it just comes quite naturally to me. And about the bare infinitive at the beginning of the sentence...hmmm. I'll bet SevenDays, Agró or El Profe will have the answer. The bare infinitive would have ruined Hamlet's quote: *"Be or not be: that is the question."



Thanks very much for your reply, Donbill.

But this is what I mean ...; Hamlet´s quote is: "_To_ be or not to be, ... and this would be okay because it's an infinitive (with 'to'), not a bare infinitive. This is why I don't see how 'Tell...' can be grammatically correct.

Un saludo cordial.


----------



## SevenDays

There is something else to consider: *aspectual agreement* between the two clauses when a "do something" relationship is involved:

_All I *did* was *tell* him the truth_ (*did* and _*tell*_ are non-progressive and therefore in aspectual agreement)
_All I *did *was *telling* him the truth _(_*did*_ is non-progressive, but *telling* is progressive; they are not in agreement)
_All I was *doing* was *telling* him the truth_ (*doing* and _*telling*_ are progressive; they agree)

_All you have to *do* is *dream*_ tick
_All you have to *do* is *dreaming*_ cross
_All you have *to be doing* is *to be dreaming*_ tick
_*Dreaming* is all you have to do_ tick. Aspect has to do with verbs; _*dreaming*_ is a verbal noun functioning as subject.
_*Being* yourself is all you have to do_ tick _*Being*_, subject.

_All you have to *do* is *be* yourself (_)
_All you have to *do* is *being* yourself (_)
_All you have *to be doing* is *to be being* yourself (_), where _*being*_ assumes a lexical role, like _*doing*_; yet, I doubt many folks would actually say this.

*be or not be*, and *being or not being*, are grammatically sound, but they destroy the metrical beauty of *to be or not to be*:
to *BE*| or *NOT*| to *BE*  (where the second syllable is accented in iambic meter)
*BE*ing| or *NOT*| *BE*ing  (_Being_ is in trochaic meter, where the first syllable (*BE*) is accented; it clashes with the iambic meter (or *NOT*).
*BE*| or *NOT* | *BE* (The monosyllabic "*BE*" clashes with the two-syllable iambic meter "or *NOT*")

Cheers


----------



## donbill

I knew you could do it SevenDays! The idea of aspectual difference had not occurred to me. It makes complete sense.

Saludos


----------



## FromPA

Be yourself. It's an imperative form


----------



## duvija

(I believe those sentences are pseudo-clefts and not cleft). This is from the web (of course). Oh, shut, I didn't save the URL... See below 'all you need is love'.

Home » Book tree » Relative clauses » Emphasis and relative clauses » Pseudo-cleft sentences

Pseudo-cleft sentences 

Pseudo-cleft sentences are similar in function to cleft sentences, but they are formed with the pronoun what ( = the thing(s) that/which) or all ( = the only thing(s) that/which) and have a clause that substitutes a noun phrase and acts as the subject of the whole sentence. 
What I have always wanted is peace, love, freedom and happiness.
What I don’t like about him is his hairstyle.
*"All you need is love."*​In the following sentences the verb phrases are emphasised by "cleaving". In this case the verb after be will take the form that corresponds to the form used in the what-clause: 
What you should do is write a letter to the manager.
What I want to do is sleep. 
What they were doing was bathing in a tub.
What I can do for you is call for a taxi.
I don’t know why the baby is crying. All I did was smile at her.​In these examples the verb after be will take the form that the verb in the what-clause is normally followed by: 
What I want is to sleep. 
What he hates is getting up early.​This is how you "cleave" a verb which is in the past simple and present perfect: 
What I did in the end was go home.
What I have done is write a letter to the editor.​


----------



## blasita

Thanks everyone. But I'm afraid that nobody has actually replied to my question about the correctness of starting a sentence (e.g. 'Tell ...') with an infinitive without 'to' (I hope I haven't missed anything).

SevenDays:  thank you for your useful and detailed explanation. This point of view of 'aspectual agreement' is very interesting.

Duvija:  thanks for the reference. Yes, some grammars call ´pseudo-clefts´ to the ones I called 'cleft sentences' . But I think it may be just using different terms to describe the same concept; do you agree?

Gracias.  Un saludo a todos.


----------



## grubble

capitas said:


> Thank you, Blasita.
> I know  sometimes there are differences between English and Spanish very hard to deal with.
> Todo lo que necesitas es soñar/soñar es todo lo que necesitas.
> All you need is Love/dream - Dream/Love (ing) is all you need
> To my clumsy Spanish mind, It seems to me that they four mean the same. What do you think?
> I'll keep my not understanding, and using, as you said, All I need is believe,  even if I don't understand why.  * All I need is to believe.*
> Thenk you again, Blasita.



Please note that in the expression "All you need is love", "love" is a *noun*.

All you need is* love*  = Todo lo que necesitas es *el* *amor*.

If you wish to use a verb then you must say: "All you need is to love"

All you need is dream 
Dream is all you need. 
All you need is *a* dream. 
*A* dream is all you need. 
Dreaming is all you need. 
All you need is to dream.


----------



## blasita

grubble said:


> Please note that in the expression "All you need is love", "love" is a *noun*.
> 
> All you need is* love*  = Todo lo que necesitas es *amor*.
> 
> If you wish to use a verb then you must say: "All you need is to love"
> 
> Dream is all you need.



Thank you, Grubble. Yes, 'love' is a noun; that's why I didn't have any problems with this sentence (Love is ...).

So, please, then we agree that the above sentence is not grammatically correct, but is it said also in BrE?

Un saludo.


----------



## FromPA

blasita said:


> Thank you, Grubble. Yes, 'love' is a noun; that's why I didn't have any problems with this sentence (Love is ...).
> 
> So, please, then we agree that the above sentence is not grammatically correct, but is it said also in BrE?
> 
> Un saludo.



Love is non-countable while dream is countable.  So, using the noun form, you would say "All you need is love" and "All you need is a dream."  In the verb form, it would be "All you need (to) do is (to) love"  and "All you need (to) do is (to) dream."


----------



## blasita

FromPA said:


> Love is non-countable while dream is countable.  So, using the noun form, you would say "All you need is love" and "All you need is a dream."  In the verb form, it would be "All you need (to) do is (to) love"  and "All you need (to) do is (to) dream."



Thank you very much for your answer, FromPA. I know all of this, but my question is actually about e.g._*Tell* __him the truth was a__ll I did_ (here 'tell' is just a verb, and I think it should be 'Telling ...').

Saludos.


----------



## kayokid

blasita said:


> my question is actually about e.g._*Tell* __him the truth was a__ll I did_ (here 'tell' is just a verb, and I think it should be 'Telling ...').
> 
> Saludos.



Hello. Personally, I think that this is a rather strange word order and something that would be said only in very limited contexts but in my opinion it should be:* Telling* him the truth was all is did. (Normally I would say: All I did was tell him the truth.)


----------



## blasita

kayokid said:


> Hello. Personally, I think that this is a rather strange word order and something that would be said only in only very limited contexts but in my opinion it should be:* Telling* him the truth was all is did. (Normally I would say: All I did was tell him the truth.)



Thanks a lot, Kayokid.  And what about e.g. 'Crying is all I need'? I don't think it'd be right to say 'Cry is all I need', would it?

Un saludo.


----------



## kayokid

Again, I see this as a strange sentence, in terms of word order, but I like the gerund and not the bare infinitive at the beginning of such sentences.


----------



## blasita

kayokid said:


> Again, I see this as a strange sentence, in terms of word order, but I like the gerund and not the bare infinitive at the beginning of such sentences.



OK.  Muchas gracias por tu ayuda. Un abrazo.


----------



## FromPA

blasita said:


> Thank you very much for your answer, FromPA. I know all of this, but my question is actually about e.g._*Tell* __him the truth was a__ll I did_ (here 'tell' is just a verb, and I think it should be 'Telling ...').
> Saludos.



All I did was tell him the truth = _*Tell* __him the truth was all I did_;  however, inverting the word serves to emphasize that you told him the truth, typically in response to a question.

Q1.  Did you tell him the truth?
Q2.  All I did was tell him the truth. 

Q2.  Did you tell him the truth?  Did you mislead him in any way?  
A2.  Tell him the truth was all I did. (I spoke the truth without any equivocation - this meaning comes from the context and from the emphasis provided by the word order inversion).


----------



## blasita

FromPA said:


> All I did was tell him the truth = _*Tell* __him the truth was all I did_;  however, inverting the word serves to emphasize that you told him the truth, typically in response to a question.



Uf. Vale, pues entonces dices que es correcto como inversión en estos casos y que da incluso más énfasis, y que se usa normalmente cuando se responde a una pregunta. Muchas gracias.

Siento mucho haber insistido en todo esto porque puede que no sea exactamente el tema de este hilo; aunque estoy segura de que puede ayudar a muchos otros. Lo que no me cuadra es que se empiece una oración con un infinitivo sin el 'to'.

Gracias por vuestra paciencia. Saludos.


----------



## duvija

Nope. You have to know the difference between clefts, and seudo-clefts. Both move the focus to the front, but it took me forever to learn which one is which one, and now I absolutely want to inflict the same pain to everybody else.


----------



## blasita

duvija said:


> Nope. You have to know the difference between clefts, and seudo-clefts. Both move the focus to the front, but it took me forever to learn which one is which one, and now I absolutely want to inflict the same pain to everybody else.



OK, so ... do it! I'm ready. 

What I meant to say is that some grammars call the ones starting with 'It' cleft sentences, and pseudo-cleft the rest. 

A pseudo-cleft allows end focus to be placed on the clause element; e.g. the ones introduced by a 'what-clause'. A cleft involves recasting a normal sentence pattern to give focus to a particular topic: 'It+ be+focus+clause'.

But I think it doesn't change anything (in practice) we've already said, does it??


----------



## SevenDays

blasita said:


> my question is actually about e.g._*Tell* __him the truth was a__ll I did_ (here 'tell' is just a verb, and I think it should be 'Telling ...').
> 
> Saludos.



The only difference between *tell* and *telling* is* aspect *(non-progressive "tell" vs. progressive "telling"). The choice of aspect doesn't alter the fact that we are moving _(_*clefting*) part of the information (in this case, the verb and its complements) to the_ front _of the sentence for greater focus. The choice of aspect, I think, needs to be consistent; that is, the aspects (how we view verb action in terms of time flow) should match in the foregrounded information (what's moved to the front) and the backgrounded information (what's moved to the back): _*tell* him the truth was all I* did*_; _*telling* him the truth was all I was* doing*_. Cleft sentences are traditionally divided into_* it-clefts *_and_* pseudo-clefts*_, and pseudo-clefts include various types of clefting (_*wh*-clefts_,_*all*-clefts_,_*there*-clefts_, etc.)     

Cheers


----------



## blasita

SevenDays said:


> _*tell* him the truth was all I* did*_; _*telling* him the truth was all I was* doing*_.



So, if I get you right, in your opinion e.g.: _Dream is all you need/all you have to do. _; _Telling him the truth was all I did. _

Saludos.


----------



## SevenDays

blasita said:


> So, if I get you right, in your opinion e.g.: _Dream is all you need/all you have to do. _; _Telling him the truth was all I did. _
> 
> Saludos.



No, I wouldn't say _*telling* him the truth was all I* did*_ because aspects don't agree (*progressive* vs. _*non-progressive*_), but that is simply how I view such construction. We can easily see that *telling* is a verb; it has complements: direct object ("the truth") and indirect object ("him"). On the other hand, "dream" is a noun in "dream is all you need", therefore aspect agreement is not an issue because aspect involves verbs: _*A dream is all you need.*_ "Need" is a stative verb and stative verbs are mostly incompatible with the progressive, so "_a dream is all you are needing"_ sounds forced and unidiomatic (though the progressive may be added with adjuncts: *a dream is all you need to be succeeding in life*.) As a verb, yes, in my mind, "dream" needs aspectual consistency:* Dreaming the easy life in Vegas is all he is doing*, where the verbal noun "dreaming" retains its verbal nature and takes the complement (direct object) "the easy life."

Saludos


----------



## capitas

Thank you Grubble.
I knew it was a noun (it was also a well known song), and because of that I changed it into "All i need is (to) believe", to make it clear it was a noun.
But I think that now I am not astonished, I'm just perplex.
"All I did is tell him the truth"  is OK
But "All I need is believe" is not OK.
Aren't they exactly the same structure and the same "aspectual mode"?. I can't see it.


----------



## blasita

SevenDays said:


> No, I wouldn't say _*telling* him the truth was all I* did*_ because aspects don't agree (*progressive* vs. _*non-progressive*_), but that is simply how I view such construction. On the other hand, "dream" is a noun in "dream is all you need", therefore aspect agreement is not an issue because aspect involves verbs: _*A dream is all you need.*_



Muchas gracias por tu explicación, SevenDays. Es siempre un placer leer tus comentarios.

Anyway, I'm still confused because there are mixed opinions regarding the use of this inverted structure (and I'm not talking _only_ about this thread).  But it's good to have different opinions; it makes things more interesting. Personally, I think context and practice are both needed here.

Un saludo.


----------



## ribran

Blasita,

I would use the bare infinitive here.

Anyway, now that I have read this thread, _a good cry is what I really need. _


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> Blasita,
> 
> I would use the bare infinitive here.



Thanks, Ribran. Where? In all examples? Always? So, you would never say  'Telling ...'? Would you say 'Dream is ...'?

No sabes donde te has metido.   Un abrazo.


----------



## ribran

I can't say I am in the habit of forming sentences in this way , but in my opinion, _tell_ is the better option. 

_Tell him the truth was all I did.

but

Telling him the truth was all I was doing.


_I hope you are doing well.


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> I can't say I am in the habit of forming sentences in this way , but in my opinion, _tell_ is the better option.
> 
> _Tell him the truth was all I did.
> Telling him the truth was all I was doing.
> _



Thanks a lot. Yes, all native speakers I've asked agree that these structures are not very common, but they don't agree on this. (And what about the 'Believe is all you need/All you need is believe'?).


----------



## ribran

_To dream is all you need._
_A dream is all you need. _
_All you need is to dream._
_All you need is a dream. _


_All we need is to find something else to talk about. _
_(...just kidding )_


----------



## blasita

Sorry, I meant 'believe'.  Would it be the same ('believe' is not a noun)?


----------



## ribran

_To believe is all you need.
All you need is to believe.
__All you need to do is to believe. 
OR
All you need to do is believe. 
_


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> _All you need to do is believe._



OK, so then, why not 'Believe (=Dream?) is all you need to do' (=All you need to do is believe)?


----------



## grubble

blasita said:


> Sorry, I meant 'believe'.  Would it be the same ('believe' is not a noun)?



With dream and love the verb and noun have the same spelling. With "to believe" the noun is belief.

To believe is all you need. 
A belief is all you need. 
Belief is all you need. 
Believe is all you need to do.  (Possible but unusual)

Believe is all you need. 

Does this help? Or does it make things worse?


----------



## ribran

You have stumped me, Blasita! 

I would use the full infinitive there. 

_To believe is all you need to do.
Believe is all you need to do. 

_


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> You have stumped me, Blasita!
> 
> I would use the full infinitive there.
> 
> _To believe is all you need to do.
> Believe is all you need to do.
> 
> _



This is the problem (one of the problems). If you think that it should be 'need _to_', you wouldn't be able to say 'All you need to do is believe', and you´d rather say 'All you need to do is to believe./To believe is ...'.

And thank you, Grubble.


----------



## grubble

ribran said:


> You have stumped me, Blasita!
> 
> I would use the full infinitive there.
> 
> _To believe is all you need to do.
> Believe is all you need to do.
> 
> _


I think it's OK (but very unusual).

Mary:  "If only I could believe in myself..."
John: "Yes Mary: Believe is all you have to do."

Seems Okay to me. What do you think?


----------



## ribran

Hello, Grubble.

Yes, it sounds fine to me in that context. 

I realize I'm not being very consistent.  I didn't necessarily consider the second sentence incorrect, but it didn't pass the grammatical sniff test the first time around.


----------



## blasita

ribran said:


> I realize I'm not being very consistent.



Don´t worry, Ribran; it´s not only you, at all. I've found some inconsistency in usage. Thanks a lot for your help.

Creo que los contextos que se han aportado son muy útiles para entender mejor el uso de esta estructura. Yo, por mi parte, no voy a insistir más y dar más ejemplos porque no quiero alargar aún más este hilo. Muchas gracias a todos por vuestra ayuda. Saludos.


----------

