aprobado para ser llevado a cabo

Doc&piano

Member
Spanish-Mexico
I am writing a professional letter (brief).

I am not sure about the right form: approved to be carried out vs approved for being carried out. (is there any difference in meaning, if any?).

Is there any clue when to use "to be" vs "for being"? Alguna pista? Alguna clave?

En español no hay mucho problema, uno dice: aprobado para ser llevado a cabo. Tanto el "to" o el "for" pueden ser traducidos como "para".

La frase completa está en el siguiente párrafo. (The complete paragraph is as follow) MUCHAS GRACIAS POR LA AYUDA

On behalf of the Ethics Committee of our Institute of Vision, I am glad to communicate to you that the research protocol about macular edema has been approved for being carried out in our institution.




 
  • chacahua

    Senior Member
    Midwestern American English
    This is a tough one, but that could actually be not such a bad thing. It's tough because you can actually "force" either "for + gerund" or "infinitive" into your sentence, and neither one sounds real bad. However, I've run a bunch of example phrases through my head, and I think the basic pattern I detect is that when you wish to follow "approve" with a verb, the infinitive works better, and if you follow it with a noun, then "for" is the natural choice. However, since a gerund functions as a noun, and since with "approve + noun" you normally use "for," then "for + gerund" can substitute for an infinitive. But I believe it to be suboptimal. Also, I found it helpful to begin by changing from "was approved" to "to be given approval." Examples:

    She was given approval for a home loan.
    She was given approval to borrow $200,000 to buy a house.
    She was given approval for borrowing $200,000... (Doesn't sound horrible, just not as good as "to borrow")

    She was approved for a home a loan.
    She was approved to borrow $200,000 to buy a house.
    She was was approved for borrowing $200,000... (Doesn't sound horrible, just not as good as "to borrow")

    The loan was approved for disbursal on the 1st of the month.
    The loan was apporoved to be dispursed on the 1st of the month.
    The loan was approved for being disbursed the 1st of the month. (Sounds OK, just not as good as "to be dispursed")

    What I see here is that the gerund "being," since a gerund functions as a noun, makes the phrase something more similar to the first example in each of the three sets above. Do you remember that I said "approve + noun" uses "for"? Well, there's something about the gerund (noun) "being" that mimics this structure, so it doesn't sound so bad. The same logic applies with any "for + gerund" structure - like the "She was approved for borrowing..." example above, but for whatever reason "being + past participle" sounds even more "noun-ish" than other gerunds, so it doesn't sound so bad.

    BUT....The proper way I would say is that if you can use the infinitive instead of the "for + gerund" structure, use it. It's better English (say I!!!​)

    To recap:

    1. "approve + noun" --> for + noun
    2. "approve + verb" --> infinitive
    3. since a gerund functions as a noun, you can use "for + gerund," but "infinitive" works a little better.
     
    Last edited:

    chacahua

    Senior Member
    Midwestern American English
    Is there any clue when to use "to be" vs "for being"? Alguna pista? Alguna clave?
    This is such a broad question, I wouldn't know where to begin. I really think you'd have to take it one example at a time, like we did with "was apporved for/to..."
     

    Doc&piano

    Member
    Spanish-Mexico
    Thank you!! Very useful, mainly the explanation about: "gerund functions as a noun". It helped me to understand better.

    thank you for your broad explanation. It gave me many clues. Have a good day.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top