# There isn’t any crime I wouldn’t put past him.



## Gamja

Marty's evil. There isn't any crime I wouldn't put past him.

phrasal verb 공부하던 중 위의 예문이 나왔는데
도대체 무슨말인지 모르겠습니다.
어떻게 해석해야 하나요?


----------



## pcy0308

Here, given the "evil" nature or character of Marty, the speaker *believes that Marty is capable of committing any crime *and that such *would not at all be a surprise (would rather consider his possible wrongdoing to be typical, expected, and probable)*.

Normally, to "wouldn't put it past someone" is an informal, idiomatic expression conveying a speaker's belief in capability of someone doing something (usually something bad, immoral, beyond common sense, etc.). I'd say the expression is often constructed in negative - in your case, with "would not."

For example, 
"Lee is the most corrupt businessman I know. I would not *put it past him* _to sell his own family_ just to maintain his stature and safeguard his interest." = it *would not be a surprise* even _if Lee sold his family_ for his own interest.


----------



## Gamja

@pcy0308 
Thank you for such a kind reply.
I have already known the meaning. But It's hard for me to understand *how* the phrase *'There isn't any crime' explained in that way.*
What about "There is any crime I wouldn't put past him"? I think it sounds more close to your explaining-capable of committing any crime. Is it weird?
*'wouldn't put past him'* is also confusing because it doesn't have *it* between *put* and *past* which deviates from its typical way 'wouldn't put it past him'.


----------



## pcy0308

I must say, the phrase you provided, *"there is any crime I wouldn't put past him," *does not sound all too natural, but I'd say the same thing about the original sentence, which almost sounds like a double negative. Assuming what the speaker is trying to say is that Marty is capable of committing any kind of crime (since according to the context you've provided, he is "evil"), more natural way to put things would be *"I wouldn't put it past him to (even) commit crime."* 

However, let's just say, there is no choice but to work with the original sentence - unfortunately. With regards to the omission of "it" in the original sentence, "there isn't any crime I wouldn't put past him," my guess is the neutral placeholder "it" is cancelled out due to the aforementioned "crime," rendering the usage of "it" redundant and rather unnatural. Then again, I am more used to seeing the expression used with the placeholder "it," so it would be more natural say, "I wouldn't put it past him to commit crimes;" here, the emphasis is on my opinion, considering him to *be capable of committing crime* whereas, as for the original, the emphasis would be on the statement that there is *no* crime that he is incapable of committing. Subtle nuances and differences in meaning, I'd say.


----------

