# Criteria to judge people based on



## chjvu

The criteria to judge people based on

Would this be a correct grammar use?


----------



## LQZ

1 It is not a complete sentence.
2 This phrase seems fine to me. Both 'to judg people' and 'based on' are modifers of 'the criteria'.


----------



## MichaelW

As LQZ says, it would help if you would give the whole sentence so it is clear what referes to what.


----------



## chjvu

Oh sorry for not being articulate with my question. Here's the adequate syntax

"there are certain criteria for me to judge people based on"


----------



## MichaelW

That doesn't make any sense, it needs more.

There are certain criteria for me to judge people, based on... {whatever the criteria are based on}.

Is that what you mean? In which case the two phrases are separate and one does not include the other.


----------



## chjvu

no, "based on the criteria"


----------



## MichaelW

In which case it doesn't work, if you mean that is the whole sentence.

Either "I judge people based on certain criteria" or "there are certain criteria for me to judge people by".

You could say "I have been trained to judge people based on certain criteria" but then again there are two phrases.


----------



## LQZ

There are certain criteria that I base on to judge people.

MichaelW, does this one work?


----------



## chjvu

I'm aware that there are more consistent methods to convey the message but would you classify that as grammatically incorrect?
 Another example could be
" That's the device to produce energy using"


----------



## MichaelW

> There are certain criteria that I base on to judge people


"Base on" is just not an idiom in this case. You could say "rely on" or "depend on" or similar.



> That's the device to produce energy using


 As in your first example you are taking a participle used to introduce a second phrase and putting it into the first, but with no second phrase to introduce. That's the device to produce energy using... what?

That's the device _we are using_ to produce energy - works. The present participle goes with "we are" and does not try to introduce another phrase.


----------



## LQZ

> "Base on" is just not an idiom in this case. You could say "rely on" or "depend on" or similar.


Thanks MichaelW. I've got it.


----------



## chjvu

So does it mean that you cant use a participial phrase in an infinitive phrase ?

Another example that could assist you to judge this is
" What you see on the table is the weapon to assassinate hitler using"


----------



## MichaelW

That's right, it doesn't work. I see your logic, but I suspect that this is something you can do in Vietnamese, but can't do in English.

1 - What you *see* on the table
2 - *is* the weapon
3 - {*verb*} to assassinate Hitler

You want a verb to complete 3, a participle on its own will not work.


----------



## chjvu

But you can totally phrase it as " what you see on the table is the weapon that you assasinate hitler using" right?


----------



## MichaelW

No, the "using" is still a participle with no verb attached, it must either introduce a second phrase or be part of a verb+participle formation in the first phrase.

Phrase 1 - You will assassinate Hitler
Phrase 2 - using a hammer.

Phrase 1 - This is the weapon you _will be using_
Phrase 2 - to assassinate Hitler.


----------



## chjvu

Sorry to bother you again but

How about these 2 examples
" what weapon did you kill the man using"
and
" the circumstances on which he will be charged depending"
would they be grammatically acceptable?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

chjvu said:


> But you can totally phrase it as " what you see on the table is the weapon that you assasinate hitler using" right?


As Michael says, it would have to be _What you see on the table is the weapon that you use to assassinate H_.

You might say:

_He tried to assassinate H using this rifle._

I'm not sure that the _using this rifle_ is part of an infinitive phrase.


----------



## MichaelW

No, they are the same pattern as your other examples, and don't work.


----------



## chjvu

and one more "what circumstances will he be charged based on?:


----------



## Thomas Tompion

chjvu said:


> Sorry to bother you again but
> 
> How about these 2 examples
> " what weapon did you kill the man using" - What weapon did you use to kill the man.
> and
> " the circumstances on which he will be charged depending" - I don't know what this is saying.
> would they be grammatically acceptable?


I've put my reactions in blue, Chjvu.  You seem to be in a bloodthirsty mood today.


----------



## MichaelW

"Based on what circumstances / will he be charged?"
"Using what weapon / will he assassinate Hitler?"

But these are examples of the same thing - the order of the 2 phrases is switched round to make a question, but "based on" does _not_ go with "circumstances". The same applies, one phrase has a full verb, and the participle introduces a second phrase.

I think you are trying to do something like "on what based-on-circumstances will he be charged" but it doesn't work in English.


----------



## chjvu

It's true, i have been struggling with answering my cousin's questions on the use infinitives

But in the end, 
These formations are correct right:
" the weapon to assassinate hilter with"
"the weapon that you use to assassinate hitler"
"the weapon circumstances which they take into account to charge him"
"he chooses the movie scene to kiss during"


----------



## MichaelW

" the weapon to assassinate hilter with"
"the weapon that you use to assassinate hitler"
Are okay.

"the weapon circumstances which they take into account to charge him"
Sort of, "weapon circumstances" would be better as "weapons evidence" or something but that is a different question.

"he chooses the movie scene to kiss during"
Word order is wrong...
"he chooses to kiss during the movie scene" is fine.


----------



## chjvu

no the last sentence as in this context
"He always go to the movie in advance of the date to choose the perfect scene to kiss during"


----------



## chjvu

and sorry "weapon in the second example was a typo"
And one tiny little question more
" this is the sentence which i doubt the validity of"
is it correct?


----------



## MichaelW

The word order could put another way...
"the perfect scene during which to kiss"
"the sentence of which I doubt the validity"
but these are word-order questions, and moving away from your original participle question.


----------



## chjvu

I was just thinking and suddenly I found an example where it would be grammatically correct to insert a participle. " the method to achieve justice using corporal punishment" and on the side is this correct "the method which, knowing that it's necessary, people use"


----------



## MichaelW

As before, there are still two phrases...

a - The method _to achieve_ justice / using corporal punishment
b - The method which people _use_ / knowing that it's necessary

Certainly there can be variations in the way the phrases are ordered (your second example is correct). But you cannot put a complete verb or verb+participle into a single phrase and then stick a second participle in the same phrase.


----------



## chjvu

So participials could only be used in an infinitive phrase if it has a certain subjects except for cases like this
" its the news from which, stunned and confused, he collapsed"


----------



## MichaelW

That isn't an infinitive phrase, and "stunned and confused" is a second phrase.

1a - It's the news from which / 2 - stunned and confused / 1b - he collapsed.

Look back to one of your earlier examples, for instance



> That's the device to produce energy using.



Where you have one phrase with an infinitive verb and a stray participle:

1 - That's the device to produce energy / (?) using (?)


----------



## chjvu

Yes sorry, i'm a bit frustrated and exhausted from all the contemplations. But is that a second phrase in the clause "from which"?


----------



## MichaelW

You could certainly chop it up further but that would obscure the point I think.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

There's also the issue of whether an infinitive phrase is the same thing as a final phrase.

I'd distinguish between:

_He likes to go to see her_ - infinitive

_To go to see her he takes his bike_ - final phrase (_to go to see her_ means _in order to go to see her_).

I wondered if 

_The method to achieve justice using corporal punishment_

wasn't a final construction.

You'd better sit down and have a massage, Chjvu.


----------



## chjvu

Yes, it's clearer for me now. I never really noticed all these throughout my whole life speaking ENglish till my cousin actually mentioned them.
So basically participial in infinitive can't be subjected to the object right?
Like this,
"That's one reason to be happy about, considering all those things you have gone through"
and if "considering" is a second phrase, what is it modifying though?


----------



## chjvu

not necessary, It's called ambiguity that everyone needs to cope with, depending on the context of the sentence though.


----------



## MichaelW

There is a useful description with examples here.


----------



## chjvu

Thank you, Michael
Could you please help me with the other post though?


----------



## chjvu

MichaelW said:


> "Based on what circumstances / will he be charged?"
> "Using what weapon / will he assassinate Hitler?"
> 
> But these are examples of the same thing - the order of the 2 phrases is switched round to make a question, but "based on" does _not_ go with "circumstances". The same applies, one phrase has a full verb, and the participle introduces a second phrase.
> 
> I think you are trying to do something like "on what based-on-circumstances will he be charged" but it doesn't work in English.




Then how would you use it in a declarative sentence
wouldn't that be "i know what weapon he will assassinate hitler using"
cuz i totally cant think of any other way to insert that question into a declarative formation.


----------



## Forero

Yes, an infinitive phrase can include a participial phrase. For example:

_It would be wrong to interfere with a person attempting to resuscitate the victim._

The following sentences are grammatical, but the "participial" phrases are adverbial:

_That's one thing to be happy about, considering all that you have gone through._ [= ... to be happy about when you consider all ....]
_There are certain criteria for me to judge people based on._ [= ... based on which for me to judge people.]

Besides the "participle phrase" being used adverbially, the next two sentences could benefit from an added preposition:

_ That's the device to produce energy *by* using.__
What you see on the table is the weapon to assassinate Hitler *by *using.
_
They are still very awkward to my ear, so I think _using _is probably not the right word choice:

_ That's the device by means of which to produce energy.__
That's the device to produce energy__ by means of__.__
What you see on the table is the weapon with which to assassinate Hitler.
__What you see on the table is the weapon to assassinate Hitler with.

_The above four sentences and the following four do not use participles but prepositions:
_
He chooses the movie scene to kiss during._ [Stranded _during_ sounds weird.]
_ He chooses the movie scene during which to kiss._ [OK]
_This is the sentence which I doubt the validity of._ [OK]
_This is the sentence of which I doubt the validity._ [More formal]

I hope this helps.


----------



## Imber Ranae

chjvu said:


> Then how would you use it in a declarative sentence
> wouldn't that be "i know what weapon he will assassinate hitler using"
> cuz i totally cant think of any other way to insert that question into a declarative formation.



No need for a participle at all. Very simply: "I know what weapon he will use to assassinate Hitler."

Is this the meaning you intend?


----------



## chjvu

I'm not asking for a different way of expressing the message but a way to prove the application of participial into a different clause or infinitive phrase.
Thank you anyway


----------



## Forero

Hi, Chjvu.

I think I have a workable example of what you are asking for. First a relative clause in which the relative pronoun is the object of a participle:

_These are the pills _(_that_)_ we should get people taking when they have too much money.

_The relative pronoun here (_that_) is the direct object of _taking_. It is optional since the subject of _should get_ is _we_. We can use an infinitive introduced by _to _in the same way as the "we should get" clause:
_
These are the pills to get people taking when they have too much money.
_
Here the function word _to_ plays the role of the relative pronoun as well as being an introducer for the purpose of the pills.

Is this what you want?


----------



## chjvu

Thank lord, you are my saviour, Forero!

It seems you are the only one concerned enough to bother having a deeper look into my theories and  research. Thank you for you persistent and tenacious sympathy.

It's a coincidence that i came up with several examples similar to these from a grammarian of the University of New South Wales, Australia.

"AK 47 was the best selling Russian armament product that the corrupted members of the old Soviet Regime almost never got caught smuggling"

"Death of comrades is one unpleasant scene to imagine witnessing"


i still have one question, though

What's the role of "to" in that example?


----------



## Forero

Hi, Chjvu.

I will guess you are asking about your last example (with "to imagine witnessing").

I am curious what the grammarian from USW says about this. I think the main function of _to_ here is to subordinate what might have been a predicate. It also allows the "predicate" not to have an expressed subject or a definite tense or mood.

I am not an expert on phrases like this, but to me it seems that _to_ also serves as a direct object of witnessing because "one unpleasant scene to imagine witnessing" resembles something like:

_ one unpleasant scene that we might imagine witnessing
_ 
I have always heard that the relative pronoun _that_, which may be omitted, is said to act in phrases like the above as both a direct object and a subordinator.

But if _to_ can be a direct object, then I would think _for_ can too:

_ one unpleasant scene to imagine ourselves witnessing
one scene too unpleasant to imagine ourselves witnessing
one unpleasant scene for imagining ourselves witnessing
_ 
Or are these phrases just elliptical constructions with omitted direct objects?

I have started a new thread about this issue, which also came up in this thread.


----------

