# <Put> in a lot of trouble



## Lun-14

Get /Put into trouble

In this thread, native speakers suggested "get into trouble" as the correct option for *Abcdkkk*'s context.

Please have a look at this example
A commentator in a snooker match could say _''Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and *put* Laurie Parke in a lot of trouble.''_

My question:
Would you please let me know why "put" is correct in this example but not in that linked thread's context?



Thanks a lot!


----------



## heypresto

What is your question?


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> What is your question?


Please have a look at my OP again. I've now written my question.
Thanks.


----------



## Barque

The context is different and "trouble" in your OP is used slightly differently from the sentence in that other thread.


----------



## lingobingo

By far the most idiomatic expression is to “get [either oneself or someone else] into trouble”. 

It’s also common to say that something “lands someone in trouble”. The use of “put” is unusual.


----------



## velisarius

Where did you find the example sentence, Lun?


----------



## Lun-14

velisarius said:


> Where did you find the example sentence, Lun?


My teacher spoke this sentence in the classroom. Why are you asking?


----------



## DonnyB

That sentence strikes me as a little bit odd even by sports commentator standards. 

I'd have said "landed" rather than "put".


----------



## Lun-14

Barque said:


> "trouble" in your OP is used slightly *differently* from the sentence in that other thread.


What difference do you find? Will you please explain?


----------



## heypresto

It sounds fine to me in the context of a snooker match. If/when deliberately puts the cue ball in such a position that it causes big problems for B, then it sounds natural to say 'A put/s B in a lot of trouble'.


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> It sounds fine to me in the context of a snooker match. If/when deliberately puts the cue ball in such a position that it causes big problems for B, then it sounds natural to say 'A put/s B in a lot of trouble'.


Here, as you say, "put" is natural to use. But why was it not in the Abcd's context in the linked-to thread? Why can we use "put" in this example but not in the Abcd's context? What's the difference?


----------



## Barque

Lun-14 said:


> But why was it not in the Abcd's context in the linked-to thread?


Because they are different contexts and different situations.


Lun-14 said:


> What difference do you find?


Isn't it obvious? The "trouble" that someone might get into for breaking out of a hostel at night (as in that other thread) is not the same as the "trouble" that a snooker player faces when the cue ball isn't in a good position.


----------



## lingobingo

See #5. And all the answers in your previous thread telling you emphatically that “get” was the right word.


----------



## Lun-14

lingobingo said:


> By far the most idiomatic expression is to “get [either oneself or someone else] into trouble”.


Which example are you talking about? The Abcd's in that other thread or mine in this thread?




lingobingo said:


> It’s also common to say that something “lands someone in trouble”. The use of “put” is unusual.


Again, what example are you referring to here? Abcd's or mine?


----------



## lingobingo

I now see that the thread you’ve given a link to in the OP was actually started by someone else. But that’s hardly relevant.

The comments of mine that you repeated in #14 are meant as statements of fact, not comments on specific examples.


----------



## Lun-14

lingobingo said:


> The comments of mine that you repeated in #14 are meant as statements of fact, not comments on specific examples.


Lingobingo, I'm confused. Do your comments in #5 that I quoted in #14 apply both to Abcd's context in that other thread and my example in this thread? More simply, can "get [oneself or someone] into trouble" and "land [someone] in trouble" both be used in my example in this thread? (I'm talking about snooker's example.)


----------



## lingobingo

Lun, you’re always confused.   They apply to the English language.

You will put yourself into trouble. And put me into trouble too. 
You will get into trouble. And get me into trouble too. 

Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and put Laurie Parke in a lot of trouble. 
Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and left Laurie Parke in a lot of trouble. 

The snooker commentator’s use of “put” is perfectly acceptable – especially considering that he’s talking “live” (as things happen), without the opportunity of deciding in advance how to say something or editing it afterwards.


----------



## Lun-14

lingobingo said:


> Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and put Laurie Parke in a lot of trouble.
> Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and left Laurie Parke in a lot of trouble.


What about?

Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and *got* Laurie Parke into trouble.
Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and *landed* Laurie Parke in trouble.


----------



## sound shift

heypresto said:


> It sounds fine to me in the context of a snooker match. If/when deliberately puts the cue ball in such a position that it causes big problems for B, then it sounds natural to say 'A put/s B in a lot of trouble'.


----------



## lingobingo

Lun-14 said:


> What about?
> Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and got Laurie Parke into trouble.
> Ali Katt has laid a superb snooker and landed Laurie Parke in trouble.


*Landed* works very nicely there. “Landing someone in trouble” can mean being responsible for a situation in which they are faced with a problem.
*
Got* doesn’t work so well. Perhaps this is because “getting someone *into* trouble” is usually used in the sense of creating a situation in which they will at least be told off and possibly even punished.


----------



## Lun-14

lingobingo said:


> “getting someone *into* trouble” is usually used in the sense of creating a situation in which they will at least be told off and possibly even punished.


Do you mean that here there's little chance for someone to receive punishment. They can be forgiven for their mistake. E.g.

_I got Paul into trouble by telling his grandmother that he's broken her glasses.  _

Here, there is no chance of severe punishment by the grandmother; she can give a very little punishment to him (asking him to do some sit-ups) or she can forgive him.


Am I right?


----------



## lingobingo

That’s a perfect example of causing a situation that will probably lead to his being told off.


----------



## Lun-14

lingobingo said:


> That’s a perfect example of causing a situation that will probably lead to his being told off.


Do you agree that here the person would just be told off; there is no (or little) chance of him being punished?


----------



## heypresto

There is certainly _some_ chance that she punished him. 

What is she like? Is she a sweet old grandma who will just tell Paul he's been naughty boy, or a severe old battle-axe who is likely to whack him over the head with a rolled up newspaper and send him off to his room with no tea?


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> There is certainly _some_ chance that she punished him.
> 
> What is she like? Is she a sweet old grandma who will just tell Paul he's been naughty boy, or a severe old battle-axe who is likely to whack him over the head with a rolled up newspaper and send him off to his room with no tea?


----------



## velisarius

You're all stereoyping grandmothers.

The grandmother in question is a feisty 45-year-old who was livid when her daughter's kid broke the glasses she'd just poured the last of her gin into. The kid is in for at least a clip round the ear, and as like as not an earful of obscenities to go with it.

There are degrees of being in trouble, Lun.  You might be in trouble with the law, in trouble with your spouse who found out you were cheating on them, or just in trouble with your mother because you forgot to phone her again.


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> What is she like?


Does that even matter? I just wanted to know what "to get somebody into trouble" might mean.


----------



## lingobingo

And you still don’t get it?


----------



## Lun-14

velisarius said:


> There are degrees of being in trouble, Lun. You might be in trouble with the law, in trouble with your spouse who found out you were cheating on them, or just in trouble with your mother because you forgot to phone her again.


I agree with you, veli, but I was interested in the use of "get", i.e. knowing when a person *gets* someone into trouble.


----------



## heypresto

You wrote a _perfect_ example, in post #21, of when we would use 'get into trouble'. What do you still not understand?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> Perhaps this is because “getting someone *into* trouble” is usually used in the sense of creating a situation in which they will at least be told off and possibly even punished.



Especially if a man gets a girl into trouble. He will be stoned to death.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Lun-14 said:


> My teacher spoke this sentence in the classroom. Why are you asking?


How very strange indeed! It reminds me so much of a reply given on 'the other thread' that was deleted for some reason, I forget what, but it might have been because it was veering off the topic.
Why on earth lie about it? All you need say is that it was a response that was deleted.
Just like this thread seems to have veered back to the 'get into trouble' OP.
You've been given various explanations and comments about "..._ *put* Laurie Parke in a lot of trouble.''_

To sum up, 'put somebody in trouble' is a very unusual expression. It may not be an expression at all: it might be just what somebody said one time, because, as has been pointed out, people often use strange or even incorrect language when they are commentating live, or speaking 'impromptu', or more slangy, talking 'off the top of their head'.

I suggest that 'put somebody in/into trouble' simply isn't worth the trouble of discussing further. It's flogging a long-dead donkey. Lun, you need to move on.

Now, there is a really *useful *expression involving 'put' and 'trouble'.
It's 'put somebody to (-) trouble'. For example:

'I don't want to put you to any trouble'

'She put everybody she knew to a great deal of trouble trying to help her.'

'I put myself to a lot of trouble trying to write useful answers on the forum.'

You have my permission to start a thread asking about this phrasal construction, quoting me.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> Here, there is no chance of severe punishment by the grandmother; she can give a very little punishment to him (asking him to do some sit-ups) or she can forgive him.


You think?

A grandma asking somebody/anybody to do some sit-ups as a punishment?

I never thought I'd be thanking you for a good laugh. But you're right in a way.
My children are 40/50 something, and my grandchild is 18 and lives 5,000 miles away. She does respond to threats of no more financial help.


----------



## Barque

Hermione Golightly said:


> A grandma asking somebody/anybody to do some sit-ups as a punishment?


Actually Lun-14 means squats, not sit-ups. The Hindi/Urdu word for squats is a variation of the word for "sit". Making children do squats is a traditional punishment in some north Indian and possibly Pakistani families, just like soldiers might be asked to do push-ups for minor offenses.


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> You wrote a _perfect_ example, in post #21, of when we would use 'get into trouble'. What do you still not understand?


The use of past tense in my #27 and #29 shows that I'd understood. But I am not sure whether the explanation that I gave in #21 and #23 about the sentence "_I got Paul into trouble by telling his grandmother that he's broken her glasses"_ is correct or not. Would you let me know please?


----------



## Barque

Lun-14 said:


> But I am not sure whether the explanation that I gave in #21 and #23 about the sentence "_I got Paul into trouble by telling his grandmother that he's broken her glasses"_ is correct or not.


I'm sure you're joking. In those posts you asked how a grandmother is likely to react. How can we answer that? Every grandmother's different and we can't predict the likely reaction of every grandmother in the world.


----------



## heypresto

If you are referring to:

_"Here, there is no chance of severe punishment by the grandmother; she can give a very little punishment to him (asking him to do some sit-ups) or she can forgive him."_

and

_"Do you agree that here the person would just be told off; there is no (or little) chance of him being punished?"_

Then I answered it in my post #24.


Crossed with Barque - with whom I agree.


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> If you are referring to:
> 
> _"Here, there is no chance of severe punishment by the grandmother; she can give a very little punishment to him (asking him to do some sit-ups) or she can forgive him."_
> 
> and
> 
> _"Do you agree that here the person would just be told off; there is no (or little) chance of him being punished?"_
> 
> Then I answered it in my post #24.
> 
> 
> Crossed with Barque - with whom I agree.





Barque said:


> I'm sure you're joking. In those posts you asked how a grandmother is likely to react. How can we answer that? Every grandmother's different and we can't predict the likely reaction of every grandmother in the world.


I was basing my explanation of how a grandmother would react on this:


> getting someone *into* trouble” is usually used in the sense of creating a situation in which they will at least be told off and possibly even punished.


(LingoBingo's comment)


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Still talking about 'getting into trouble'?


----------



## heypresto

"getting someone *into* trouble” is usually used in the sense of creating a situation in which they will at least be told off and possibly even punished."

 Exactly.



Hermione Golightly said:


> Still talking about 'getting into trouble'?


I'm afraid so.


----------



## Lun-14

heypresto said:


> "getting someone *into* trouble” is usually used in the sense of creating a situation in which they will at least be told off and possibly even punished."
> .


HP, I was simply expanding this in my #21 and #23.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

The 'man getting a girl into trouble' idiom is surely worth a few more messages. We should go for the longest off-topic thread ever.


----------



## heypresto

Lun-14 said:


> HP, I was simply expanding this in my #21 and #23.



Yes, but as I said, this has been answered.

I'm confused now.

What _did_ Paul's grandmother do to him after you told her about the broken glasses?

If she told him off, and/or punished him, then you got him into trouble. If she just smiled and did nothing, then you didn't. 

But then why would you be telling us about it if she didn't do anything?

So we can assume that she did do something, and that you did get him into trouble.


----------

