# EN: convinced + of/that/to



## Dapoint

Hi all,

Which preposition can we use after "convinced"?
- to be convinced of?
- to be convinced that?
- to be convinced to (+ verb)?
Which ones are correct and do we have to use after each? : verb, noun, etc.

Thanks for your help.

By the way, my context is a cover letter for an job application:
- I am convinced that I have the assets to help the success of [name of company] and that we should meet.
- I am convinced to have the assets to help the success of [name of company] and that we should meet.

If it sound weird, please tell me.


----------



## akaAJ

"convinced that" is grammatically correct, but "I am sure that" is more idiomatic USE.  Likewise, "assets" is ok whether it means _financial_ assets or skills, experience, training.  If the latter, I'd probably say, "I'm sure I have the skills and experience you need for the success of ..." or " ... experience to contribute to the success of ..."

"to have" never works.  "I am convinced of one thing: heavier-than-air craft will never fly" illustrates use of "convinced of".


----------



## carolineR

I'd say
- I am convinced that I have the skills...
or
- I am convinced I have the skills ...


----------



## Dapoint

Thank you very much, both of you, for all those details and for your help!


----------



## Keith Bradford

"_Convince to_" and "_Convince someone to do something_" are always wrong.  I know that the latter is often heard, but it's a solecism for "_*persuade someone to do something*_."


----------



## Dapoint

Thnak you for this correction, Keith, because indeed, I checked on Google and there are so many pages with the prior expression.


----------



## bloomiegirl

Not all authorities feel that "_convince someone to do something_" is wrong:
*Usage Note
Convince*, an often stated rule says, may be followed only by _that_ or _of_, never by _to_ [...] The history of usage does not support the rule. *Convince* (someone) *to*  has been in use since the 16th century and, despite objections by some, occurs freely today in all varieties of speech and writing and is fully standard: _Members of the cabinet are trying to convince the prime minister not to resign._ (source)​


----------



## mgarizona

I'll just add that the OED doesn't seem to have a problem with it ... though it's true they do try to fob it off as "_orig. U.S._"


----------



## Mikamocha

Maybe I missed seeing this in an earlier post but, I am convinced of is commonly used when talking about a provable fact

I am convinced *of* the fact that he is a great pilot. 
I am convinced of his prowess as a pilot
I am convinced of his skills as a pilot

"Convinced to" ne se dit pas.


----------



## jann

Mikamocha said:


> "Convinced to" ne se dit pas.


Let us be clear.  "Convinced to" is possible, but only in certain circumstances... and with the caveat that some would argue that usage of "convinced" to mean "persuaded" is sloppy.

All of the prepositions mentioned so far are possible, but they require *different grammatical constructions:*

to be convinced of + noun clause
to be convinced (that) + subordinate clause with subject and verb
to be convinced/persuaded to + infinitive

e.g.,
I was convinced of his innocence. = J'étais certain de son innoncence *ou* On m'a persuadé de son innocence.
I was convinced (that) he was innocent. = J'étais certain / on m'a persuadé qu'il était innocent.
I was convinced to acquit him = On m'a persuadé de l'innocenter.

As you can see, the first two constructions can be ambiguous:  the word "convinced" may be an adjective (=certain, sûr) or it may be part of a passive voice construction (= on m'a persuadé) indicating the influence of a third party on your opinion.  

The third construction, however, unambiguously requires the action/influence of a third party:  someone must do the convincing.


----------



## brian

Wow - I have _never_ heard of this "Don't say _convinced to_" rule. Very bizarre.

Anyway, I agree 100% with jann's explanation. Very thorough, and in line with my intuitions.


----------



## bloomiegirl

There's a WR thread for persuade or convince?, and I risk beating a dead horse, so I'll try to be brief. :heehee:

Some style manuals say that "_convince_ cannot be followed by a _to_ phrase" (e.g., _The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage_), but usage runs counter to that prescription. A couple of (published) examples:
I convinced him to go in the other room and call the Witness.
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear

He seduced her, lived with her in sin, and convinced her to become his seventh wife when they returned to Utah. 
– Irving Wallace, The Twenty-Seventh Wife​
There are many more... Heck, even the New York Times doesn't adhere to the dictum in its own style guide.
I love my style guides, but in this case I side with usage.


----------



## akaAJ

While I agree with bloomiegirl on usage, and I accept that jann's first two examples can (very marginally) imply third-party action rather than the state of the speaker's mind, the last, "I was convinced to acquit him", screams for "persuaded".


----------



## Mikamocha

bloomiegirl said:


> I convinced him to go in the other room and call the Witness.
> – Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear ​




That makes sense to me although the usage of convinced here seems synonymous with persuaded. 

I believe that a little clarification is in order: to be convinced to do something/believe something, for me =persuaded. In that case the construction (persuaded to) works well. 


What I meant was I do not see grammatical accuracy in the phrase originally posted by DaPoint at the beginning of the thread. 

*- I am convinced to have??? the assets to help the success of [name of company] and that we should meet.*


-I am convinced *that *we have the assets to help...(oui, ca marche bien). 

Are we agreed?​


----------



## bloomiegirl

Oops, off in generalites... Back to the specific context:


Dapoint said:


> [...] By the way, my context is a cover letter for an job application:
> - I am convinced that I have the assets to help the success of [name of company] and that we should meet.
> - I am convinced to have the assets to help the success of [name of company] and that we should meet.  [...]



But I agree with akaAJ – I don't think I'd say either on the cover letter for a job application... I think I'd say instead:
"I'm sure I have the skills and experience to contribute to the success of ..."


----------



## brian

_I am convinced to have..._ sounds decidedly French since it's a construction they use and we don't. Same reason why you can't say _I am sure to have..., I think to have..._, etc. (N.B. There are some exceptions, e.g. _happy to have_, but I think they're rare.)

The reason is that _*to be convinced to have_ is syntactically different from _to be persuaded (convinced) to have_, even though they may look identical.

_*I am convinced to have X_, in the sense of _I am convinced that I have X_ <-- _am convinced_ is a simple _<to be> + <adj.>_ construction which, like _sure_ above, doesn't work when followed by an infinitive, _to have X_

_I am convinced to have X_, in the sense of _I am persuaded [by someone] to have X._ <-- _am convinced_ is a passive verb, so it's okay.

Actually, it's not really okay since we rarely talk about convincing (as a verb), or any other action-type verbs, in the present tense. In the same way that it's odd to say _I am punched right now_ rather than _I am being punched right now_ or _I was just punched_, so too is it odd to say _I am convinced [by someone] to have/do X_ instead of _I am being convinced_ or _I was convinced_.


----------



## geostan

There are all kinds of sites discussing the niceties of these two verbs. I like this simple one:
_
Generally, *convincing* involves changing someone's beliefs or opinions ("He convinced 		me that Pepsi really is better than Coke"), while *persuading*_ involves spurring them to action ("He persuaded me to throw all 		my Coke cans away"). Grammatically, "convince" is followed by 		"that" or "of," while "persuade" is followed by "to."  		

While it is true that in every-day usage, these two verbs are used interchangeably, if you want to please everyone, follow this guide.


----------



## brian

I actually feel like there's a meaningful difference between _convince someone to do something_ and _persuade someone to do something_, at least in certain contexts.

Since _convince_, as you say, geostan, involves changing someone's beliefs or opinions, I feel like that semantic property holds even for the _convince someone to_ construction. Let me give you an example:Two friends, Bob and George, get caught stealing from a store. Bob is always getting into trouble, whereas George is generally a nice boy. When questioned by his parents, George says, "I know it was wrong to steal, but Bob convinced me to!"​In this context, _convinced_ implies, at least to me, that George changed his beliefs, at least temporarily, in order to steal. That is, for that brief moment, Bob managed to make George believe that it was okay to steal, or that he could ignore his conscience/beliefs.

_Persuaded_, on the other hand, would imply that George stole knowing (and still believing) full well that it was wrong.

It may not be a great example, but if you consider the adjectives _convincing_ and _persuasive_, I think the difference is there. We could say that "Bob was convincing" means that Bob was able to convince George that stealing was okay, whereas "Bob was persuasive" simply means Bob was able to get George to steal, without having him change his beliefs.


----------



## mgarizona

Geostan: please observe that there is no conviction of anything implied in the sentence "He persuaded me to throw all my Coke cans away." The persuader may have claimed to be irrationally afraid of Coke cans and the other party may have acted through sheer bemusement.

The general distinction between these two words is that an argument can be persuasive without being convincing, but the opposite is not true. 

Note that the OED primarily defines what it calls the "absolute" sense of *persuade*--- that is, the sense in which 'persuade' = 'convince,' where persuasion includes actual convincing--- thus:

"_absol. To convince, be convincing, carry conviction_"

The underlying notion that there is a problem with the words 'persuade' and 'convince' acting as synonyms in certain instances--- primarily, it should be noted, in passive constructions--- lacks rationale.


----------



## geostan

Brian, I think your example shows that the one boy spurred the other to action, to use the language of the quotation. And to add to this, there is the grammatical point that convince does not lend itself to the construction to + infinitive.

To mgarizona:

_please observe that there is no conviction of anything implied in the sentence "He persuaded me to throw all my Coke cans away." The persuader may have claimed to be irrationally afraid of Coke cans and the other party may have acted through sheer bemusement._

That is precisely the point being made by the quotation I provided. There is no conviction, hence, no need to use the verb _convince_. Or have I missed something in your statement?


----------

