# All I have left to do is cook the fish



## JJJenifer

Hi, everyone,

I found a sentence in an English textbook.
I have changed the object to "the fish", so there shouldn't be any copyright issue.

With my weak English knowledge, I don't understand why this sentence is right.
Shouldn't it be "All I have left to do is to cook the fish." or
"All I have left to do is cooking the fish." ?

Thank you in advance.
JJJennifer


----------



## entangledbank

With 'all' it can be 'cook' or 'to cook'. The same thing applies with constructions beginning with 'what':

What I have to do now is cook the fish.
What I have to do now is to cook the fish.

And with ordinals and the like:

The first thing we have to do is cook the fish.
The first thing we have to do is to cook the fish.


----------



## Uncle Jack

JJJenifer said:


> All I have left to do is cooking the fish.


This is not natural. Using an infinitive is far better.


----------



## JJJenifer

entangledbank said:


> With 'all' it can be 'cook' or 'to cook'. The same thing applies with constructions beginning with 'what':
> 
> What I have to do now is cook the fish.
> What I have to do now is to cook the fish.
> 
> And with ordinals and the like:
> 
> The first thing we have to do is cook the fish.
> The first thing we have to do is to cook the fish.


Thank you, entangledbank,
I thought that in English, more than one main verb should be avoided and that is the reason why infinitives or present participles are used, except some exceptions like "make", "help", "hear", "see" and so on.
So I have misunderstood something here?



Uncle Jack said:


> This is not natural. Using an infinitive is far better.


Thank you, Uncle Jack,
So is it something like people are used to omitting "to" in these sentences?


----------



## elroy

Uncle Jack said:


> This is not natural.


You’re too generous.  I would say it’s flat-out wrong.


----------



## JJJenifer

How about this sentence?

All I had done was making the tea. I didn't add poisonous pills init.

Is "making" here more natural? Or is it still better to use 
"make" or " to make"?


----------



## elroy

JJJenifer said:


> All I had done was making the tea.


----------



## Uncle Jack

JJJenifer said:


> Or is it still better to use
> "make" or " to make"?




I cannot imagine any situation where a speaker would use the past perfect in this sentence. Even if it might be justified, a person who uses "init" would probably avoid the past perfect unless it was essential to the meaning, which it probably isn't here.


----------



## Myridon

"to cook" and "cook" are both infinitives in your sentences.  "Cook" by itself is the bare infinitive.  It's not a main verb.  Its tense doesn't change when you change the tense.
The first thing we have to do is cook the fish.   
The first thing we had to do was cook the fish.   
The first thing we had to did was cooked the fish.  Both "to do" and "cook" are infinitives.


----------



## JJJenifer

elroy said:


>


so "All I had done was make the tea." or  "All I had done was to make the tea."are the only choices?



Myridon said:


> "to cook" and "cook" are both infinitives in your sentences.  "Cook" by itself is the bare infinitive.  It's not a main verb.  Its tense doesn't change when you change the tense.
> The first thing we have to do is cook the fish.
> The first thing we had to do was cook the fish.
> The first thing we had to did was cooked the fish.  Both "to do" and "cook" are infinitives.



I didn't know anything about "bare infinitives".
I am going to google it.
Really thank you very much!!
JJJennifer


----------



## Man_from_India

JJJenifer said:


> so "All I had done was make the tea." or  "All I had done was to make the tea."are the only choices?


Do know whether this is actually in use or not, but theoretically the following is possible:



> All I had done was made the tea.





> All I was doing was cooking the fish.


Your versions are wrong.
As for relevant the grammar you should read the topic - pseudo cleft.


----------



## Roxxxannne

_All I have left to do is cooking the fish _definitely sounds strange (#3 and #6 above).
What about _Cooking the fish is all I have left to do_?


----------



## JJJenifer

Man_from_India said:


> As for relevant the grammar you should read the topic - pseudo cleft.


Thank you very much! I didn't know pseudo cleft or even cleft sentences.
I am going to google it now!


----------



## JJJenifer

Thank you, Man_from_India,
About the example  _All I had done was made the tea_.
according to the webpage I found which I don't know if I can share the link here, 
this sentence still needs to be   _All I had done was (to) make the tea_...


----------



## SevenDays

JJJenifer said:


> Hi, everyone,
> 
> I found a sentence in an English textbook.
> I have changed the object to "the fish", so there shouldn't be any copyright issue.
> 
> With my weak English knowledge, I don't understand why this sentence is right.
> Shouldn't it be "All I have left to do is to cook the fish." or
> "All I have left to do is cooking the fish." ?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> JJJennifer



-ing verbs refer to things that are concurrent/simultaneous in "time," as in

_I was cooking the fish while my sister was making rice_
"cooking" and "making" are simultaneous actions.

The notion of "simultaneous" is absent in your example (the fish is still uncooked), so "All I have left to do is cooking the fish" is distinctly odd and ungrammatical.

As to the infinitive, with or without "to," in

_All I have to do is (to) cook the fish_

Since the subject of the verb/infinitive (_to) cook_ is co-referential ("the same") as the subject "I" that begins the sentence, the subject of _(to) cook_ is omitted. But it's not just the subject of the infinitive that's omitted. Notice what happens if you want to mention the subject of the infinitive:

_All I have to do is *for me to* cook the fish_

"me" is the subject of the infinitive;
"for" is what marks the subject of the infinitive;
"to" is what marks the infinitive itself.

Because "for," "me" and "to" are understood and predictable, syntax gets rid of them (they are not needed), so that we end up with a simpler sentence:

_All I have to do is cook the fish_

But some people keep the infinitive marker "to," perhaps to balance things with the other infinitive ("to do"):

_All I have to do is to cook the fish_

All the things that are understood and omitted _can _be omitted, provided that the infinitive "(to) cook" is in a subordinate function. As "subject" of a sentence, nothing can be omitted:

_For me to cook the fish is unusual_

In other words, we must have "for" to mark the subject of the infinitive, and "to" to mark the infinitive. In linguistics, "for ... to" is known as a _complementizer; _it's what introduces an infinitive as subject of a sentence. Remove either one, "for" or "to," and we end up with an ungrammatical sentence:

_me to cook the fish is unusual  
For me cook the fish is unusual  _


----------



## Rover_KE

JJJenifer said:


> I found a sentence in an English textbook.
> I have changed the object to "the fish", so there shouldn't be any copyright issue.



Always tell us the* title and author* of any book you quote from, please.

If you do that there will be no copyright issue and you don't need to change anything.


----------



## JJJenifer

Thank you for your comment, Rover_KE,

I have changed some part of sentence so it is different from the original sentence from the textbook. Then I am the author. Am I right?

The original sentence is from the lesson materials used by an online language school, which is not published as a paper book. There is a name called "New Practical English" for this material but I don't find any author's name, maybe we should say the author is the school.
If I shared the link of the language school, wouldn't I be regarded advertising?


----------



## nightowl666

According to grammar rules, when the subject of a sentence ends with "do" and the main verb of the sentence is "be", we usually use a bare infinitive (without to)* or *an infinitive (with to)。 Both are correct, but a bare infinitive is more common and an infinitive(with to) is a bit old-fashioned. For instance, all I want to *do* today is (*to)* play games.

The following was quoted from A. Thomson _*A Practical English Grammar*_


----------



## JJJenifer

SevenDays said:


> -ing verbs refer to things that are concurrent/simultaneous in "time," as in
> 
> _I was cooking the fish while my sister was making rice_
> "cooking" and "making" are simultaneous actions.
> 
> The notion of "simultaneous" is absent in your example (the fish is still uncooked), so "All I have left to do is cooking the fish" is distinctly odd and ungrammatical.
> 
> As to the infinitive, with or without "to," in
> 
> _All I have to do is (to) cook the fish_
> 
> Since the subject of the verb/infinitive (_to) cook_ is co-referential ("the same") as the subject "I" that begins the sentence, the subject of _(to) cook_ is omitted. But it's not just the subject of the infinitive that's omitted. Notice what happens if you want to mention the subject of the infinitive:
> 
> _All I have to do is *for me to* cook the fish_
> 
> "me" is the subject of the infinitive;
> "for" is what marks the subject of the infinitive;
> "to" is what marks the infinitive itself.
> 
> Because "for," "me" and "to" are understood and predictable, syntax gets rid of them (they are not needed), so that we end up with a simpler sentence:
> 
> _All I have to do is cook the fish_
> 
> But some people keep the infinitive marker "to," perhaps to balance things with the other infinitive ("to do"):
> 
> _All I have to do is to cook the fish_
> 
> All the things that are understood and omitted _can _be omitted, provided that the infinitive "(to) cook" is in a subordinate function. As "subject" of a sentence, nothing can be omitted:
> 
> _For me to cook the fish is unusual_
> 
> In other words, we must have "for" to mark the subject of the infinitive, and "to" to mark the infinitive. In linguistics, "for ... to" is known as a _complementizer; _it's what introduces an infinitive as subject of a sentence. Remove either one, "for" or "to," and we end up with an ungrammatical sentence:
> 
> _me to cook the fish is unusual
> For me cook the fish is unusual  _


Thank you for your patience and explanations, SevenDays.
When I wrote the sentence, I thought "cooking the fish" is gerund, just like
"My hobby is cooking."

Actually this kind of sentence may go with present participles depending on the
"What/All I have to clause", according to the page I found.

I am not sure if any quotations from the page will lead to any copyright issues, so let me not show you any examples to prove.
But you can find the page very soon if you search for it with the keyword "pseudo-cleft" on yahoo!

I think you might find something surprising you.

Man_from_India (#11) told me the name of this kind of sentences. 
Really thank him very much!


----------



## JJJenifer

nightowl666 said:


> According to grammar rules, when the subject of a sentence ends with "do" and the main verb of the sentence is "be", we usually use a bare infinitive (without to)* or *an infinitive (with to)。 Both are correct, but a bare infinitive is more common and an infinitive(with to) is a bit old-fashioned. For instance, all I want to *do* today is (*to)* play games.
> 
> The following was quoted from A. Thomson _*A Practical English Grammar*_
> 
> View attachment 62644


Thank you very much, too, nightowl666,

Then how about verbs other than "do"?
Maybe you can get a comprehensive understanding about it from some pages explaining 
"pseudo-cleft", which was introduced by Man_from_India.


----------



## nightowl666

JJJenifer said:


> Thank you very much, too, nightowl666,
> 
> Then how about verbs other than "do"?
> Maybe you can get a comprehensive understanding about it from some pages explaining
> "pseudo-cleft", which was introduced by Man_from_India.


This rule only applies to "after do". Please see M Swan _Practical English Usage_ as follows:



Thank you for telling me the grammatical term: "pseudo-cleft." Got it. Macmillan Dictionary has this entry. Chinese teachers of English also use this term, but they sometimes simply called it wh-clause+be+infinitive.


----------



## JJJenifer

nightowl666 said:


> This rule only applies to "after do". Please see M Swan _Practical English Usage_ as follows:
> View attachment 62647
> Thank you for telling me the grammatical term: "pseudo-cleft." Got it. Macmillan Dictionary has this entry. Chinese teachers of English also use this term, but they sometimes simply called it wh-clause+be+infinitive.


Thank you very much for introducing me the nice book, nightowl666.
I will check it!
I didn't know they call it "Wh-clause+be+infinitive". 
Good to know.
Thank you again!


----------



## Roxxxannne

In #12 I asked about _Cooking the fish is all I have left to do_. Native speakers, does this sound okay to you?


----------



## Man_from_India

Roxxxannne said:


> In #12 I asked about _Cooking the fish is all I have left to do_. Native speakers, does this sound okay to you?


I would say it is not what people generally say. And in that respect I guess it doesn't sound good. Though I am not a native speaker.


----------



## DonnyB

Roxxxannne said:


> In #12 I asked about _Cooking the fish is all I have left to do_. Native speakers, does this sound okay to you?


I'm not keen on it: it sounds more natural to me as "All I have to left to do is cook the fish".


----------



## Myridon

Roxxxannne said:


> In #12 I asked about _Cooking the fish is all I have left to do_. Native speakers, does this sound okay to you?


It seems fine to me.
I've poured the wine, set the table, and baked the potatoes, so cooking the fish is all I have left to do.


----------



## Man_from_India

Now it's a strange finding. Let's see how other people from across the ocean comment on this.


----------



## SevenDays

While 

_All I have left to do is cooking the fish_

sounds, to my ears, distinctly odd

_cooking the fish is All I have left to do_

is ok, provided that it's in the right context. For one thing, the "gerund" (traditional terminology) feels right at home as "subject" (_running a marathon is fun; smoking is prohibited_). More to the point, in:

_I've poured the wine, set the table, and baked the potatoes, so cooking the fish is all I have left to do
_
all the verbs (_pour, set, bake, cook_) are "durative verbs" (or verbs with _durative aspect_); these are verbs which refer to an activity or process that extends for a certain amount of time. So, for example, while "poured" represents a completed act, it's understood that "pouring" _preceded_ the completed act.


----------



## PaulQ

JJJenifer said:


> "All I have left to do is cooking the fish."


You are using a gerund wrongly - you need to use a verbal noun:
"All I have left to do is *the cooking of* the fish."


----------



## Man_from_India

PaulQ said:


> You are using a gerund wrongly - you need to use a verbal noun:
> "All I have left to do is *the cooking of* the fish."


What do you think about "cooking the fish was all I have left to do"?


----------



## PaulQ

"cooking the fish was all I have left to do." 
"*C*ooking the fish was all I ha*d* left to do."  
"*C*ooking the fish *is* all I ha*ve* left to do."


----------



## DonnyB

PaulQ said:


> You are using a gerund wrongly - you need to use a verbal noun:
> "All I have left to do is *the cooking of* the fish."


I'm not at all convinced anyone would actually _say_ that in real life.


----------



## PaulQ

I'm sure someone has said it.


----------



## Man_from_India

DonnyB said:


> I'm not at all convinced anyone would actually _say_ that in real life.


So does it also go for "cooking the fish is all I have left to do"?


----------



## DonnyB

Man_from_India said:


> So does it also go for "cooking the fish is all I have left to do"?


I don't think there's anything _wrong_ with that. It's just that most people would say it the other way round as I indicated in post #25.


----------



## Man_from_India

DonnyB said:


> I don't think there's anything _wrong_ with that. It's just that most people would say it the other way round as I indicated in post #25.


I also don't know whether it is right or wrong, but yes most people don't say the inverted version.


----------



## Roxxxannne

It might depend on what you want to emphasize: the activity itself or that it's the one activity left.


----------



## Man_from_India

Roxxxannne said:


> It might depend on what you want to emphasize: the activity itself or that it's the one activity left.


Yes that is what cleft or pseudo cleft sentences are used for. Yet, in this case the inverted version is barely used. Generally people don't say it.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Yes, that's what I meant although I did not use that terminology.  I have the impression that inverted sentences like this are more than barely used, but I will have to listen more carefully.  Possibly I'm thinking of written English in works of fiction rather than spoken, conversational English.


----------



## JJJenifer

Uncle Jack said:


> I cannot imagine any situation where a speaker would use the past perfect in this sentence. Even if it might be justified, a person who uses "init" would probably avoid the past perfect unless it was essential to the meaning, which it probably isn't here.


Then for example, in what situations the use of "past perfect" in this kind of sentence might be justified?


----------



## JJJenifer

Myridon said:


> "to cook" and "cook" are both infinitives in your sentences.  "Cook" by itself is the bare infinitive.  It's not a main verb.  Its tense doesn't change when you change the tense.
> The first thing we have to do is cook the fish.
> The first thing we had to do was cook the fish.
> The first thing we had to did was cooked the fish.  Both "to do" and "cook" are infinitives.


Thank you, Myridon,
I am curious about the bare infinitives. 
I see "go eat" or "go buy" on the internet.
Is "go" going to be categorized into the verbs followed by bare infinitives in the future?
What do you think?


----------



## JJJenifer

PaulQ said:


> You are using a gerund wrongly - you need to use a verbal noun:
> "All I have left to do is *the cooking of* the fish."


You are right!
Actually I didn't have any ideas about "verbal noun".
I thought a gerund is a verbal noun.
I will google it soon. 
Thank you for pointing it out!


----------



## Forero

nightowl666 said:


> This rule only applies to "after do". Please see M Swan _Practical English Usage_ as follows:
> View attachment 62647


Yes, the verb _do_ is crucial to what we are talking about in this thread.

Starting with:

_I gave him a little push.
A fire door delays the spread of a fire._

We can produce pseudocleft sentences such as:

_All I gave him was a little push.
What a fire door delays is the spread of a fire._

In these examples, I have restructured the sentences to isolate the direct object.

But with _do_, instead of isolating a noun phrase, we isolate a whole predicate beginning with the verb, leaving behind the subject of that verb and even its tense:

_All I did was give him a little push.
What a fire door does is delay the spread of a fire._

This verb _do_ is used as a "pro-verb", taking the place of a verb as a pronoun takes the place of a noun.

The bare infinitive prevents repeating what has already been said:

_All I did was that I gave him a little push.
What a fire door does is that it delays the spread of a fire._

It is important to note that neither these _that_ clauses nor the shorter forms with bare infinitives are valid direct objects for the verb transitive verb _do_:

_I did that I gave him a little push.
A fire door does that it delays the spread of a fire._

It is also important to note that this pro-verb _do_ is not the auxiliary _do_ used to ask a question, make a verb negative, or add emphasis. Although, for example, "I did give him a little push" is a valid sentence, it separates to:

_What I did do was give him a little push._

and "I did do give him a little push" is obviously not a valid sentence.


----------



## Man_from_India

Roxxxannne said:


> Yes, that's what I meant although I did not use that terminology.  I have the impression that inverted sentences like this are more than barely used, but I will have to listen more carefully.  Possibly I'm thinking of written English in works of fiction rather than spoken, conversational English.


But did you find anything like the inverted sentence like we are discussing here in any well edited written documents?


----------



## PaulQ

Man_from_India said:


> But did you find anything like the inverted sentence like we are discussing here in any well edited written documents?


They are relatively common.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Man_from_India said:


> But did you find anything like the inverted sentence like we are discussing here in any well edited written documents?


I have to confess than in the three days since this conversation began I have read only one short novel and one work of nonfiction, and I neglected to look for inverted sentences.  I wasn't keeping track before then either.


----------

