Pseudo cleft sentences

Jigen

Jigen

Senior Member
Amalfi
Italian
What you should do is (to)write a letter to your manager.
What they were doing was arguing (or to argue)about the food.
What the neew members have done is taken (or to take)their seats in the assemly,

My question is:

Is it possible to use the to infinitive form in all these cases or the verb takes the form which corrsesponds to the form of the what-clause?
 
    • My choice would be:

    (a) What you should do is write a letter to your manager.
    (b) What they were doing was arguing about the food.
    (c) What the new members have done is to take their seats in the assembly.

    In (a) I think the choice lies between the infinitive with 'to' and the infinitive without and is a matter of style; in (b) I regard the gerund as necessary; I regard (c) in the same light as (a).
     
    It is possible to use the infinitive forms as you have demonstrated. It's a matter of author's stylistic choice. The sentences are correct either way. However, the original forms (without using the infinitive) are more common and read more smoothly.
     
    In each case, the concluding part of the sentence is a noun-phrase: that is the essence of a cleft sentence.
    Therefore in principle there are three basic options: a gerund, a to-infinitive or a bare infinitive.

    However, it is not possible to resume a finite verb-form, as that would destroy the cleft sentence. Thus it is incorrect to say:
    What the new members have done is taken their seats in the assembly. :cross:
     
    Both the bare infinitive and the to-infinitive are acceptable in your first sentence:
    "What you should do is (to)write a letter to your manager.
    ​
    .
    ​
    For me, these two are possible versions of the second sentence:
    "What they were doing was arguing (or to argue)about the food."
    ​
    What they were doing was arguing.
    ​
    (I don't like 'about the food' with this form, but this is a personal opinion, and I can't explain it.)
    ​
    What they were doing was argue about the food.​
    .
    ​
    As for the third sentence, both forms of the infinitive are possible.
    "What the new members have done is taken (or to take) their seats in the assembly."
    ​
    What the new members have done is take their seats in the assembly. (You need a form that fits with 'have done', so taken is not correct.)
    What the new members have done is to take their seats in the assembly.
    ​


    Please see this previous thread for a thorough discussion: What I would like to do is <to> take you on a journey

    Cross-posted with everyone.     :)
     
    Can we use this kind of emphasis also with the simple present as in
    "What she does it :cross: (to) sing songs for children" ?
     
    Last edited:
    I belive 'it' was a typing error. If so, this is fine:

    What she does is sing songs for children.

    I far prefer this to the version with 'to':

    What she does is to sing songs for children.

    As you will see if you read the previous threads, some people consider the version with 'to' an error, while others consider it acceptable in colloquial conversation. In this case, I think 'to' is not only unnecessary, but also slightly confusing. At first glance, 'to' may seem to mean 'for the purpose of, in order to', though a second reading shows that this is not the intended meaning.
     
    In conclusion,only when we use continuous tenses the verb takes the form which corrsesponds to the form of the what-clause, as in b) (see post #2) ,in the other cases we are free to choos an infinitive with or without to.

    Sorry for the typo in post #6



     
    Jigen said:
    when we use continuous tenses the verb takes the form which corrsesponds to the form of the what-clause, as in b) (see post #2)
    Click to expand...
    I am afraid that is not correct.
    In sentence (b) in post 2, we are dealing with two different parts of the verb: they look the same, but they are not the same.

    (b) What they were doing was arguing about the food.

    Here, the word 'doing' is the present participle of 'do' and 'were doing' is the past continuous form of the verb.
    However, 'arguing' is the gerund of the verb 'argue'. It is a verbal noun. It is not a participle and it is not the continuous form of the verb.

    We can tell for certain that 'doing' is a participle, a verbal adjective, because it is part of the verb 'they were doing'.

    We can tell for certain that 'arguing' is a gerund, a verbal noun, because it is the complement of the copulative verb 'were'.
    In other words, it corresponds to the noun-clause 'what they were doing' and for that reason it must be a noun.

    Another way to look at it is that we can exchange the particple 'doing' for a different particpial expression, such as 'engaged in':

    What they were engaged in was arguing about the food.

    Here, we are still obliged to use the gerund 'arguing'. We do not have the option of saying 'argue' or 'to argue', still less 'argued'.
     
    Last edited:
    Maybe I have not been precise;I should have written that I was reffering to sentences like
    what+subject+form of do+form of be+verb.
     
    Last edited:
    Could you kindly give an example of the kind of sentence you have in mind, along with the rule you mean?
     
    Sure,
    1.What they are doing is arguing about the food.
    2.What I will be doing this time tomorrow is studying chemistry.
    3.What I have been doing until now is cooking.

    I have used continuous tenses,as I have said previously,in these cases the verb takes the form which corrsesponds to the form of "do.In the other cases we can use both the "to- infinitive"or the"infinitive without to".

    a.What she does is (to) sing songs for children.
    b.What I did was (to) call the police.
    c.What he can do is (to) study hard.
    Is that correct?
     
    Last edited:
    Sure,
    1.What they are doing is arguing about the food.
    2.What I will be doing this time tomorrow is studying chemistry.
    3.What I have been doing until now is cooking.
    Click to expand...
    But these are the same type as sentence (b) in post (2); therefore the same analysis applies.
     
    Last edited:
    Yes, but in 1,2,3 the the ing form is the ONLY alternative whereas ina a,b,c whe can use the infinitive with or without to,can't we?
     
    In 1,2,3 we are actually using the gerund, not the participle, because it needs to be a noun.
     
    Jigen said:
    Therefore a (to)infinitive would be impossible...:tick:
    Click to expand...
    Yes, but:
    in these cases the verb takes the form which corresponds to the form of "do.:cross:
    Click to expand...
    this is not correct.

    What we are doing is using the gerund, because the structure requires a noun.
    wandle said:
    we can exchange the particple 'doing' for a different particpial expression, such as 'engaged in':
    What they were engaged in was arguing about the food.
    Click to expand...
    This possibility shows that we are not using corresponding forms in the two parts of the sentence.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top