# EN: preposition + present participle



## vanoutche

Bonjour,

Je voulais savoir si en Anglais après une préposition (before, for,from etc...) le verbe est toujours au participe présent

Merci pour vos réponses...


----------



## FRENFR

Yes.  Always.  Depending on the contexts, it can always work.

Before eating, he takes his tablet.
For flying, he needs to drink some whisky.
From eating all the food, he has become fatter.

another few:

By talking so fast, nobody can understand him.
In looking at the stars, we find many mysteries.

Can't think of any others, but single words like these will always take the present particple.


----------



## newg

I also have :
_After eating, he takes his tablet._


----------



## Forero

A preposition has to have an object, something that acts as a noun.  An _-ing_ verbal acting as a noun is a gerund.

An infinitive is sometimes possible after a preposition, but it is rare since an infinitive as noun begins with _to_.

I went down South for to see my Sall. ["For to" is an old fashioned way to say "in order to" but it can still be used and the meaning is clear.]
It is better to give than to receive. [= To give is better than to receive.]
There are other reasons to give besides to obtain recognition.
Nothing remained for me to do except to enjoy the time I had left.


----------



## vanoutche

Merci beaucoup a tout  le monde


----------



## FRENFR

I can not believe you are supporting 'for to'?!  You use this in America?

Very surprised.  With any students I have, it's a slap on the wrist and to my English ear (and probably everyone else's) it's awful to hear!


----------



## Forero

Yes.  _For_ is one of the rare prepositions that can be followed by an infinitive, and to me "for to" sounds better than "in order to".  Plain "to" is another option to express purpose.


----------



## Tim~!

^^ It's certainly non-standard over here.  I'm only aware of one regional dialect that makes use of it, but people who speak like that are characterised as fools.

The most prominent use of it that I can think of is in the nursery rhyme _The Animals Went In Two By Two:_

The animals went in two by two, hurrah! hurrah!
    The animals went in two by two, hurrah! hurrah!
    The animals went in two by two, the elephant and the kangaroo
    And they all went into the ark, *for to* get out of the rain

With respect, though, I don't think it's a good thing to cite it as English usage to learners of English.  It's extremely non-standard, considered flat-out wrong by the great majority, and of no use to foreigners, only tempting them into making mistakes or springing doubt on what they've learnt so far.


----------



## afbyorb

> It is better to give than to receive. [= To give is better than to receive.]
> There are other reasons to give besides to obtain recognition.
> Nothing remained for me to do except to enjoy the time I had left.



Are "than", "besides", "except" *prepositions* in these examples?


----------



## Forero

Sans contexte il est imposible de le dire avec certitude, mais on peut dire qu'un sustantif verbal après une préposition en anglais sera presque toujours dans la forme avec _-ing_ (the _gerund_).

Est-ce qu'il y a de contexte ?


----------



## Tim~!

afbyorb said:


> Are "than", "besides", "except" *prepositions* in these examples?


I'm not convinced.

I think of _than_ as a (comparitive) conjunction: It's better to give than (it is) to receive.

_Except_ could be considered a conjunction too, at least in this example from M-W.  (Example 2 of the three given on the page.)

Likewise _besides_ is an adverb/conjunction.  Plus, I'd be happy to say "There are other reasons to give besides _obtaining_ recognition.  _Beside__ is a preposition, meaning _next to_.

In short, I find the original premise to be reasonable, since the counter-examples cited seem not to be prepositions at all to me.


----------



## Forero

Where I live, "for to" is not "flat out wrong" or even nonstandard, just old-fashioned.

Of course, "for to" does not have to be preposition plus infinitive marker since it could be taken as "for <subject in objective case> to <verb in simple form>" without the subject, in other words the complete infinitive marker, usually "split" by the infinitive's subject or shortened to just _to_.  If you believe strongly in a "rule" that an English infinitive can never follow a preposition, you can make it true.  You can interpret anything that comes before an infinitive _ipso facto _as something other than a preposition or insist that an infinitive after whatever-it-is should be replaced by a gerund.

To modern ears, the gerund usually sounds better than the infinitive as noun anyway, and more vibrant.  An infinitive as noun seems in most cases at best philosophical, at worst dull or ugly.

In short, the Modern English infinitive as noun tends to have adverbial qualities and has little in common with the French infinitive as noun.

If someone learning English comes across what appears to be a preposition followed by an infinitive in a sentence by a native English speaker, I would suggest first considering that the "preposition" may be an adverb, for example as part of an intransitive phrasal verb.

If it is not an adverb, check for a comparison, where a "preposition" may be considered a conjunction like _as_ or _than_, as when "nothing except" means "nothing more than" or "before" means "rather than" or "different from" is just the opposite of "the same as").

If after all that the construction still appears to be a preposition with an infinitive as its object, or a transitive phrasal verb with an infinitive as its object,  don't dismiss it out-of-hand as a mistake (remember I said "a sentence by a native English speaker") but bring it back to the forum for evaluation by natives so that we can all learn something from it.


----------



## Tim~!

Forero said:


> Where I live, "for to" is not "flat out wrong" or even nonstandard, just old-fashioned.


Is where you live "the great majority", the ending of my sentence which you've snipped off when quoting me there?  No.  So, unless the learner of English intends to be heading over to your neighbourhood, my point holds perfectly, that the great majority of people to whom they speak will consider "for to" to be non standard or flat-out wrong.

Argue the point all you like, but it's not going to change it.



> <snip>bring it back to the forum for evaluation by natives so that we can all learn something from it.


It's far too early in the morning for me to get my head around the preceeding paragraphs (sorry, was just woken up by a phone call from work!), but that's a pretty good suggestion.  If there's an exception to what appears to be a rule, let's see it


----------



## Forero

We can say "To see is to believe" and not be wrong. Similarly, one can counter with:

_Actually, to see differs from to believe in that it is entirely passive in nature._

Yes, gerunds could be used here, but I maintain that this sentence is grammatical English and uses an infinitive as object of the preposition _from_.


----------



## CapnPrep

Forero said:


> Yes, gerunds could be used here, but I maintain that this sentence is grammatical English and uses an infinitive as object of the preposition _from_.


If _from to believe_ is grammatical for you, then it's grammatical for you. For me, it definitely isn't. But (aside from the "matrix-licensed complements" already mentioned above, following prepositions like _except_, _including_, etc.) the only prepositions identified in _CGEL_ as taking non-interrogative _to_-infinitival complements are _in order_ and _so as_ (p. 641) and _as if_/_though_ (p. 1153, 1262):He only mentioned it [in order to embarrass his wife].
We left at dawn [so as to miss the rush-hour traffic].
She combed her hair back with her fingers [as if to see better].​


----------



## Forero

I think it is only fair to be clear what is unacceptable to all native speakers of English, and what we actually disagree on.  It would also be nice if we could offer some reasonable explanation as to what it is we natives object to and why.

An "infinitive" in English is quite different from an infinitive in French.  But a proper answer to the original question does not stop at that. We need to be clear, among other things, on whether a preposition in English is the same thing as a preposition in French.

I started off assuming a preposition is a preposition in either language and that we all know what a preposition is, but now I am having difficulty understanding when a word or phrase becomes a conjunction as opposed to a preposition. I see "except" followed by an infinitive as a preposition, but "as if" seems to me to be a (subordinating) conjunction or a relative adverb, not a preposition.

What kind of "preposition" or "conjunction" allows an infinitive, what kind seems requires a gerund instead, and what kind is "debatable" among native speakers/writers?

Hi, CapnPrep.

I don't believe I have access to CGEL, and this terminology is different from mine or the other posters'.  Could you explain "matrix-licensed complements" and "interrogative to-infinitival complements", at least inasmuch as the terms relate to the issue of infinitives after prepositions?


----------



## CapnPrep

Prepositions like _except(ing)_, _bar_, _but_, _excluding_, _save_, etc. can be followed by a wide range of complements, because the form and content of their complement is mostly determined by the surrounding context (matrix clause). _CGEL_ refers to these complements as "matrix-licensed". There is no standard terminology for French, either, but L. Melis uses "_préposition a-sélective_" for _sauf_, _excepté_, etc. 

The prepositions _than_/_as _could also be included in this group.

I think we can agree that these are all somewhat atypical prepositions.
_In order_ and _as if/though_ are also obviously exceptional. (_CGEL_ provides several arguments for the complex preposition analysis of _as if_; I won't reproduce them here.)

If we restrict our attention to the simple, one-word prepositions that everyone agrees on, I would say that the generalization given by vanoutche and FRENFR at the very beginning of this thread is correct.

It is already clear from the preceding discussion that the counter-examples offered by Forero (_for to see my Sal, To see differs from to believe_) are not accepted as standard, grammatical English by all native speakers. Nor are they described as such by _CGEL_. It may be useful to check older grammars such as Quirk et al., Jespersen, Sweet. 

(By the way, the qualification "non-interrogative" is necessary because many prepositions accept a _to_-infinitival complement preceded by an interrogative element: _vote on which delegates to send_,_ argue about whether to leave_.)


----------

