...all I can advise you is to/ you is hold on to/is you to hold on to...

[majk10]

Hi Everybody,

I wonder if there is any difference between the following sentences and if all of them are correct:

1) As your broker, all I can advise is you hold on to that stock.
2) As your broker, all I can advise you is to hold on to that stock.
3) As your broker, all I can advise is you to hold on to that stock.

I would appreciate any help.

 

[owlman5]

Hi, majk. Sentence #2 sounds most normal to me. I'd use that version in my own speech.

 

[RedwoodGrove]

1 and 2 are OK but 3 breaks the logical sequence.

1 can be rewritten as (or is really a shortened version of):
As your broker, all I can advise is that you hold on to that stock.

2 is fine the way it is, but you have to read it with a slight pause between you and is.
As your broker, all I can advise you is to hold on to that stock.

3 needs to be rewritten as something like this:
As your broker, all I can advise is for you to hold on to that stock.

One major difference is that in 1 and 3 "advise" is an intransitive verb whereas in 2 it is transitive.

Cross-posted

 

[Forero]

I agree with RedwoodGrove's versions, but I think advise is transitive (direct object is "all") but in 2 it takes an indirect object as well. All three sentences tell what advice is meant to be given, but only 2 tells to whom it is meant to be given.

I can also read "you advise" in 1 as an imperative, in which case that would not fit:

As your broker, all I can advise is [this]: (you) hold on to that stock.

 

[majk10]

I see. Thank you all for your help