# You only can achieve that (by) making a lot of mistakes



## loureed4

Hi again! ,

   I have just this doubt about the sentence entitling this thread. I´m wondering if I need to put "by" in that sentence:

  "You only can achieve that *by *making a lot of mistakes" or "The only chance you´ll have to get there is *by *asking people to pick you up"

   In movies, I see it all the times but when I take off that preposition or connector "by", it doesn´t sound bad to me, though I don´t really know

Thanks again in advance!


----------



## lancer99

You need "by" in those sentences in English.


----------



## loureed4

I see Lancer99, thanks a lot! , I appreciate your help


----------



## flyingcabbage

English speakers tend to drop small words (prepositions or relative pronouns) when they speak though, so you will definitely hear people leaving it out.

BUT: I need other anglophones to confirm this:
I think there may be a small difference between them - 1) means the mistakes are a necessary part of the process, 2) could suggest that mistakes are a by-product/consequence

_1) You can only get there *by* making lots of mistakes - Sólo puedes hacerlo *por medio de* cometer muchos errores
2) You can only get there making lots of mistakes - Sólo puedes hacerlo con cometer muchos errores ~_ ( no puedes hacerlo sin cometer algunos errores en consecuencia)

No estoy segura, ¡espera otros!


----------



## loureed4

Thanks a lot for your reply flyingcabbage!

   Anyway, I´ll correct you a mistake in your Spanish, if you let me:  
   1)"Sólo puedes hacerlo cometiendo (rather than "por medio de") muchos errores"
   2) "Sólo puedes hacerlo si cometes muchos errores"

Now I´m the one troubled whit my own translations into Spanish, hehe, because I see there may be a little nuance, though I´m not sure, I mean, dropping "by"

Thanks again for your time and explanation! it´s really interesting!


----------



## gengo

loureed4 said:


> "You only can achieve that *by *making a lot of mistakes" or "The only chance you´ll have to get there is *by *asking people to pick you up"



The reason it sounds OK to you to drop the preposition is that none is used in Spanish, as you yourself have pointed out in your last message.

Entró en la casa rompiendo la ventana = He got into the house *by* breaking the window.

The preposition is not optional here (even though some people may omit it), and the sentence is ungrammatical without it.  The reason for this is that the meaning changes without the preposition in some sentences.

_He went into the house whistling a tune._

Here, the whistling is not the means by which he entered the house; it is merely incidental.  The "by" makes it clear that the gerund is the means for accomplishing the action of the main verb.


----------



## loureed4

Hi Gengo,

   That´s been a very accurate explanation, at least, I understood it perfectly!. Brief and accurate!

Thanks for your help!


----------



## flyingcabbage

Gengo: That's what I was trying to say, thanks for the clearer examples! Without the "by", it sounds more like a description or a side-effect of the main action. ("He fell over, breaking the chair" as opposed to "He broke the chair by falling over it", I guess). 

Loureed: Thanks for the corrections! I hope you understood me anyway, though Gengo's example should clear it up


----------



## loureed4

You´re more than welcome flyingcabbage! I understood perfectly, one learns a lot here , in these precious forums!

Thanks a lot!


----------



## St. Nick

loureed4 said:


> In movies, I see it all the times but when I take off that preposition or connector "by", it doesn´t sound bad to me, though I don´t really know.


The omission of "by" doesn't sound bad to me either, especially in the second sentence where its inclusion is an error. In that case, we need a subject complement (predicado nominal) rather than an adverbial prepositional phrase. You'll see what I mean when we invert the sentence:

["The only chance you´ll have to get there is (by?) asking people to pick you up."]
_
"Asking people to pick you up is the only chance you'll have."
"Asking is your only chance."
"By asking people is the only chance you'll have."_  

In the first sentence, the omission of "by" changes the sentence structure (an adverbial phrase > participial phrase) but not the meaning:

_"You can only achieve that making a lot of mistakes (along the way)."_

  I have to admit, though, that I prefer the preposition in this particular sentence, but I'd use "through":

_"Only through making a lot of mistakes can you achieve that."_


----------



## gengo

nonchalant slacker said:


> Primero, La razon por la que no te suena tan mal sin el BY es porque en efecto los Nativos de lengua inglesa omiten mucho el BY en ese tipo de  contexto que tù expones ( by asking people, by making a lot). Esta omicion es inconsiente y ocurre mucho en textos de mobiles, o dialogos informales,¿Pero porque omitir algo cuando se supone deberia estar alli para dar sentido a lo que se dice?)



Temo que no entiendas la gramática en este caso.  No hay ninguna omisión aquí, en el sentido de que la palabra omisión significa que falta algo.  En otras palabras, usar la preposición "by" en tales contextos o no depende del significado que quieres que tenga la oración.  Esa "by" tiene una función importante, y no puede omitirse cuando sea necesaria.  Te doy un par de ejemplos.

1. He earned his living by whistling every day.
2. He earned his living whistling every day.

En 1, esa by nos dice que silbar fue el medio por la que él se ganó la vida.  Es decir, le pagaron por silbar.  En 2, el significado es que se ganaba la vida mientras silbaba.  Es decir, estaba feliz cuando trabajaba.

Espero haberme explicado bien.


----------



## St. Nick

She earns a living flipping burgers.
He travels the city riding a skateboard.


----------



## gengo

St. Nick said:


> She earns a living flipping burgers.
> He travels the city riding a skateboard.



Yes, but you will note that I said "no puede omitirse cuando sea necesaria."  In your examples, the "by" is indeed omitted through ellipsis because no other interpretation is possible.  It would be nonsensical to imagine that she is earning a living *while* flipping burgers, that is, that the two activities are not one and the same.


----------



## lancer99

St. Nick said:


> She earns a living flipping burgers.
> He travels the city riding a skateboard.



St. Nick, could this be down to a difference between British English and American English?  "By" isn't optional in my version of AE in the first sentence.


----------



## ribran

They both sound good to me.


----------



## St. Nick

lancer99 said:


> St. Nick, could this be down to a difference between British English and American English?  "By" isn't optional in my version of AE in the first sentence.


No, not at all. It's simply a matter of using a participial rather than prepositional phrase as a modifier:

_Giving it all you've got, you'll get there.
By giving it all you've got, you'll get there._

The participial phrase places emphasis on the subject while the prepositional phrase modifies the entire main clause. Either way, the core meaning remains the same.

How can we be sure that "while" means _"at the same time"_ rather than _"and in contrast"_ in the sentence above?  We can't—it's all a matter of context and perspective.


----------



## St. Nick

lancer99 said:


> You need "by" in those sentences in English.





lancer99 said:


> This response would of be "gran utilidad" is it wasn't 90% wrong.





lancer99 said:


> Falso. En estos contextos nunca se omite el "by".





lancer99 said:


> "By" isn't optional in my version of AE in the first sentence.





lancer99 said:


> Well, you've changed the discussion again, in an apparent attempt to make some kind of point.


Then, please, Lancer99, explain the rule of grammar in your "version of AE" that requires the use of the preposition 'by' in the sentence structure.


----------



## gengo

I don't want to speak for Lancer99, but the general rule is that the "by" is necessary unless the situation makes it clear that no other interpretation is possible.  It is true that we (humans) often omit words (called ellipsis) for the sake of efficiency, but it is also true that the "by" before a gerund in many contexts is not optional, and cannot be omitted.


----------



## St. Nick

Yes, "by" or some other preposition placed before a gerund in a prepositional phrase is not optional.  On the other hand, a present participle is not a gerund and does not accept a preposition.


----------



## gengo

St. Nick said:


> Yes, "by" or some other preposition placed before a gerund in a prepositional phrase is not optional.  On the other hand, a present participle is not a gerund and does not accept a preposition.



We are talking about gerunds here, not present participles (which are used with verbs).

He is talking:  present participle
by talking:  gerund


----------



## St. Nick

gengo said:


> We are talking about gerunds here, not present participles (which are used with verbs).
> 
> He is talking:  present participle
> by talking:  gerund


_"... is talking"_ is a verb, the present progressive, and is not serving as a modifier in the sentence cited above.

_'By talking incessantly, he got his way.'_ Prepositional Phrase
_'Talking incessantly, he got his way.'_ Participial Phrase



loureed4 said:


> ... when I take off that preposition or connector "by", it doesn´t sound bad to me ....


    Some may be talking about gerunds, but LouReed and others are discussing what happens when a preposition does not precede a verbal that ends in _-ing_.


----------



## gengo

St. Nick said:


> _"... is talking"_ is a verb, the present progressive, and is not serving as a modifier in the sentence cited above.



Sorry, but "is" is the verb and "talking" is the present participle.  I don't know what you mean by modifier here, since I made no mention of one.



> Some may be talking about gerunds, but LouReed and others are discussing what happens when a preposition does not precede a verbal that ends in _-ing_.



No, you are mistaken.  Here is the quote from post #1.

_The only chance you´ll have to get there is by asking people to pick you up._

In that sentence, "asking" is a gerund.  That is, it is serving as a kind of noun.


----------



## lancer99

St. Nick said:


> Then, please, Lancer99, explain the rule of grammar in your "version of AE" that requires the use of the preposition 'by' in the sentence structure.



I don't recall having claimed that there was one.  

Only you claim that by switching around subject compliments and adverbial preposition phrases, or lately, participial and prepositional phrases -- and who knows what tomorrow will bring? -- that you can somehow arrive at some version of what you consider correct grammar.  That's both reductionist and uninteresting.  

To each his own.


----------



## St. Nick

gengo said:


> Sorry, but "is" is the verb and "talking" is the present participle.


_"Is"_ is the auxiliary within the compound verb that composes the present progressive. _"Talking"_ is the main verb.





gengo said:


> I don't know what you mean by modifier here, since I made no mention of one.


This entire discussion is centered on the modifier.



gengo said:


> No, you are mistaken.  Here is the quote from post #1.
> 
> _The only chance you´ll have to get there is by asking people to pick you up._
> 
> In that sentence, "asking" is a gerund.  That is, it is serving as a kind of noun.


Again, below is the crux of LouReed's question.





loureed4 said:


> I´m wondering if I need to put "by" in that  sentence .... when I take off that preposition or connector "by", it  doesn´t sound bad to me ....


When "by" is removed, the modifier is no longer prepositional, and "asking" is no longer a gerund. The structure has become a participial phrase, a common usage in English.


----------



## St. Nick

lancer99 said:


> I don't recall having claimed that there was one.
> 
> Only you claim that by switching around subject compliments and adverbial preposition phrases, or lately, participial and prepositional phrases -- and who knows what tomorrow will bring? -- that you can somehow arrive at some version of what you consider correct grammar.  That's both reductionist and uninteresting.
> 
> To each his own.


I only asked if you would support your own statements.


----------



## lancer99

St. Nick said:


> When "by" is removed, the modifier is no longer prepositional, and "asking" is no longer a gerund. The structure has become a participial phrase, a common usage in English.



Except that you can't remove "by."


----------



## gengo

St. Nick said:


> _"Is"_ is the auxiliary within the compound verb that composes the present progressive. _"Talking"_ is the main verb.This entire discussion is centered on the modifier.



pres·ent participle
n.
A participle expressing present action, in English formed by the infinitive plus -ing and used to express present action in relation to the time indicated by the finite verb in its clause, to form progressive tenses with the auxiliary be, and to function as a verbal adjective.

I don't have time to teach you all this, but you can learn it yourself by looking around in some dictionaries.


----------



## St. Nick

gengo said:


> pres·ent participle
> n.
> A participle expressing present action, in English formed by the infinitive plus -ing and used to express present action in relation to the time indicated by the finite verb in its clause, to form progressive tenses with the auxiliary be, and to function as a verbal adjective.
> 
> I don't have time to teach you all this, but you can learn it yourself by looking around in some dictionaries.


Present progressive verbs are formed by using a present tense auxiliary verb "to be" and marking the main verb with an [ing] ending.—Perdue University

The sentence you provided, _"He is talking,"_ is an independent clause and irrelevant to LouReed's question involving a non-finite modifier.


----------



## gengo

St. Nick said:


> The sentence you provided, _"He is talking,"_ is an independent clause and irrelevant to LouReed's question involving a non-finite modifier.



Exactly.  So please stop talking about present participles, when what we are talking about here is gerunds.

LouReed, I'm sorry this discussion has turned rather nasty, but to answer your initial question, the "by" in your two sentences cannot be omitted, at least by the vast majority of English speakers.


----------



## St. Nick

gengo said:


> Exactly.  So please stop talking about present participles, when what we are talking about here is gerunds.
> 
> LouReed, I'm sorry this discussion has turned rather nasty, but to answer your initial question, the "by" in your two sentences cannot be omitted, at least by the vast majority of English speakers.


LouReed's question centers on present participial phrases, prepositional phrases containing an _-ing _verbal object from which the preposition has been removed.  I gave you two solid examples of how your independent clause could be made relevant to this discussion:



> _'By talking incessantly, he got his way.'_ Prepositional Phrase
> _'Talking incessantly, he got his way.'_ Participial Phrase


----------



## Mate

*Nota del moderador:
*

Este hilo ha tomado por momentos un rumbo totalmente contrario al espíritu de cordialidad y camaradería que debe imperar entre colegas de un foro académico:


> *II. **Los foros promueven el aprendizaje y mantienen una atmósfera académica de seriedad y colaboración, en un tono respetuoso, positivo y cordial.*
> _*II. **The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.*_




Estimados participantes, los instamos a retomar la discusión en el clima mencionado. Caso contrario nos veremos obligados a cerrarla definitivamente.


----------



## nonchalant slacker

loureed4 said:


> Hi again! ,
> 
> I have just this doubt about the sentence entitling this thread. I´m wondering if I need to put "by" in that sentence:
> 
> "You only can achieve that *by *making a lot of mistakes" or "The only chance you´ll have to get there is *by *asking people to pick you up"
> 
> In movies, I see it all the times but when I take off that preposition or connector "by", it doesn´t sound bad to me, though I don´t really know
> 
> Thanks again in advance!



Hello Loureed4


It might be usual that some sentences sound good even if we remove some prepositions or words that seems to be unnecessaries,but the truth is that before you are sure whether or not you can afford to leave or remove something from a sentence you have to learn very well some grammar rules to know if the meaning is lost after removing something from a sentence,


For the examples you wrote in this thread I`d say you could check some grammar rules that are "Gerunds and present participles working as an adjetive,as well as the progressive present verbal form, these two rules will help you a lot to know when you can afford to remove "BY" or not without affecting the meaning of the sentence.


You are asking about the need of the preposition "BY" in 2 specific examples you wrote. In my opinion  I would say they sound good to me with or without the "by" and I also see no need to add "by" if you choose to take it away from the sentences you wrote as examples, I`d say"BY" its not mandatory there and there is a substancial context that supports the meaning. But keep in mind we are just talking about these 2 sentences you wrote "nothing else".


You also clearly say that you see it in movies all the time, Well, movies dialogues can be confusing sometimes during a learning process as well as they can also be a good source of examples, depending on which movie you are taking these sentences from, if you use this method I`d advice you to take down very well the sentences you take from movies and compare them to other reliable teaching sources so you will  clear up your doubts.


A Bonus tip I want to tell you is that after the preposition "BY" you will always see an ING form when the word that follows "BY" is a verb word, it could be a gerund"(ing)" a particible present working as an adjective"(ing)" or a Progressive present tense(ing)"  they look the same but work different and can change the meaning depending on the nature of the sentence, however what it doesnt change is the fact that its mandatory you write an (ing) form after "BY" when the word that follows "BY" is a verb word. (by eating, by coming-by getting-by entering")


You said this (I take off the preposition or connector) Dont say take off there, say take away, it works better when you are talking about taking away values or data, it is used in math opertions too, like this " take 2 away from 2, equal 0" (take off sounds a bit strange there) and another word for connector is "CONJUCTION" it is less uncertain than Connector and it will be useful to get more results and help if you use the word "conjuction" for a research  than the word connector.


Good luck my friend.


----------

