to let + object + verb = to let + verb + object ?

< Previous | Next >

loviii

Senior Member
Russian
Greetings!

Quirk, p.1206:
(1a) They let the rope go. = (1b) They let go the rope.

That is, as I understood, we can invert an object and a verb:
to let + object + verb = to let + verb + object

cambridge.org:
(2a) They agreed to let us live there rent-free.
(3a) It isn't hygienic to let the cat sit on the dining table.

By analogy with Quirk's sentences:
(2a) They agreed to let us live there rent-free. = (2b) They agreed to let live us there rent-free.
(3a) It isn't hygienic to let the cat sit on the dining table. = (3b) It isn't hygienic to let sit the cat on the dining table.

Are (2b) and (3b) correct and if not, then why not?

Thanks!
 
  • dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Note: your numbering is wrong. You have two 2a and two 2b, and no 2b or 3b.

    Also, I think "let go" and "rope" is not a good example for the general use of "let". it is closer to a phrasal verb.

    In my AE:
    (1a) They let the rope go. :)
    (1b) They let go the rope. :cross:
    (1c) They let go of the rope. :tick:
     

    Forero

    Senior Member
    I think "They let go the rope" is old fashioned and much less common than "They let go of the rope" or "They let the rope go". The latter sentence has two meanings: (1) They released the rope (same meaning as the other versions, and (2) They allowed the rope to go.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top