make somebody to not do something

deliaw

New Member
Chinese
Hello all,
I came across the following sentence in a speech on the advantages for college students to have a part-time job: "it will make them realize that every hour is important just by doing the work that makes them to not have as much time". The speaker further argued that the students will cherish the hours in the lectures because they don't have enough self-study time. The speaker was from the US.
I'm wondering whether "make somebody to not do something" is an acceptable way to express the idea or whether it was more of a slip. If it was a slip, than what is the correct way to express the intended idea?
As far as I know, "make somebody do something" is correct English while "make somebody to do something" is not. (And I find it to be a weird rule that the passive form takes the infinitive instead: be made to do something.) Please correct me if I'm wrong.
For the negative form, will people say "make somebody to not do something", "make somebody not to do something", "make somebody not do something", "cause somebody to not do something" or "cause somebody not to do something"?

Thank you very much.
 
  • owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    I'm wondering whether "make somebody to not do something" is an acceptable way to express the idea or whether it was more of a slip. If it was a slip, than what is the correct way to express the intended idea?
    It seems fairly awkward.

    "it will make them realize that every hour is important just by doing the work that makes them to not have as much time". The speaker further argued that the students will cherish the hours in the lectures because they don't have
    It will make them realize that every hour is important just by doing work that robs them of some of their free time. -- This is one way to paraphrase a fairly long-winded sentence that ended with an awkward phrase.
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    For the negative form, will people say "make somebody to not do something", "make somebody not to do something", "make somebody not do something", "cause somebody to not do something" or "cause somebody not to do something"?
    To make somebody stop doing something is probably the shortest, most common way to express the idea: Can't you make that kid stop screaming?
     

    deliaw

    New Member
    Chinese
    To make somebody stop doing something is probably the shortest, most common way to express the idea: Can't you make that kid stop screaming?
    Thank you for your reply. I have also thought of the "stop doing something" structure but it only applies to things that have begun and can begin and stop. What I'm looking for is a phrase that can be used in more contexts, including maybe the context of my example sentence. Maybe "make somebody not do something" and "cause somebody not to do something" will serve the purpose?
     

    Roxxxannne

    Senior Member
    American English (New England and NYC)
    In the speech you quote in the OP, I suspect that the speaker combined two similar constructions:
    "...the work that causes them to not have ..."
    "...the work that makes them not have ..."
    and ended up with "...the work that makes them to not have."
    Mixing two constructions is not all that uncommon, I think, when people speak extemporaneously. As someone who does this, I think it has to do with how one's brain is coordinated (or not) with one's mouth, as it were, rather than with education or attention.
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    Maybe "make somebody not do something" and "cause somebody not to do something" will serve the purpose?
    I have my doubts about these constructions, deliaw: Can't you make that kid not scream? Can't you cause that kid not to scream? I understand both of these, but neither one sounds natural.

    Can't you prevent that kid from screaming? -- This sounds a little more likely, but it really isn't anything but another way of saying Can't you stop that kid from screaming?
     

    deliaw

    New Member
    Chinese
    In the speech you quote in the OP, I suspect that the speaker combined two similar constructions:
    "...the work that causes them to not have ..."
    "...the work that makes them not have ..."
    and ended up with "...the work that makes them to not have."
    Mixing two constructions is not all that uncommon, I think, when people speak extemporaneously. As someone who does this, I think it has to do with how one's brain is coordinated (or not) with one's mouth, as it were, rather than with education or attention.
    Thank you for your explanation. Do you think the following constructions you mentioned sound natural?
    "...the work that causes them to not have ..."
    "...the work that makes them not have ..."
     

    deliaw

    New Member
    Chinese
    I have my doubts about these constructions, deliaw: Can't you make that kid not scream? Can't you cause that kid not to scream? I understand both of these, but neither one sounds natural.

    Can't you prevent that kid from screaming? -- This sounds a little more likely, but it really isn't anything but another way of saying Can't you stop that kid from screaming?
    Thank you for your reply. :) I agree that "stop" is a better choice in this context. I was just thinking that there might be other contexts where make, cause or another similar verb may be easier to use, especially when someone is trying to elaborate their opinions rather than giving such short utterances.
     
    Top