9

On page 137 of First Certificate Trainer by Peter May (Cambridge Books for Cambridge Exams), the last paragraph in Test 4, Use of English Part 2 (a cloze test on a short text entitled Safe camping), reads:

After meals, pick up any bits of food that might be left on the ground, as these can attract insects – or larger creatures. It also makes sense, for the same reason to keep unused food in closed containers well away from the camp. You don't want a hungry bear or other animal suddenly appearing in your tent!

Why not the structure "(not) to want someone to do something"? Why not "You don't want a hungry bear or other animal to suddenly appear in your tent"? (Or "suddenly to appear in your tent", or "to appear in your tent suddenly"… it is not the place of the adverb I am interested in here.)

The structure "(not) to want someone doing something" is found in the Cambridge Dictionary online, with the example sentence "I don't want a load of traffic going past my house all night, waking me up." But no explanation is given as to when one structure should be used, and when the other.

lly
  • 10,314
  • 22
  • 41
user58319
  • 4,084
  • 3
    You're right; it seems illogical to use a continuous tense. But it's quite idiomatic (ie commonly used and accepted) in this sort of construction. Perhaps it just sounds less po-faced-formal than the equivalent to-infinitive catenation. – Edwin Ashworth May 31 '14 at 11:41
  • 4
    Admittedly it's a small sample size, but Google Books says it has 42 instances of don't want them turning up compared to just 7 for don't want them to turn up, which accords with my own expectation (and preference). So I'm don't really agree with "Why not the more usual* structure?"* above. The actual citation seems far more "normal" than OP's alternative to m e. – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 11:57
  • @user58319: I don't think turning up is a gerund here. Since a gerund is effectively a noun, that usage would result in don't want their* turning up* - just about credible, but unlikely. – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 12:00
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth: thank you very much for this (to me) new adjective 'po-faced' – perhaps from po 'chamber pot' (19-20 centuries), from French pot, influenced by poker-faced – says my Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Anything that sounds dirty must be French, mustn't it?! This rich English of yours is the reason why I keep returning to this site and its bunch of irritating advocates of usage against any kind of rule, any kind of logic. I love-hate you all! To me, it seems logical to use a gerund or a continuous form here! – user58319 May 31 '14 at 12:03
  • 1
    @Fumble But with different verbs, the results are quite the opposite. “Don’t want you thinking” yields only 70 results, whereas “don’t want you to think” yields 507,000 (!). – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 31 '14 at 12:06
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: because you can do your best to reason someone out of thinking something but you cannot reason a bear out of appearing in your tent! Thanks for the editing! – user58319 May 31 '14 at 12:12
  • @Janus: Yes, the exact context is highly relevant. I was specifically focussed on OP's want + turn up combination. Which I think would even more markedly favour the -ing version with like as the first verb, but if we switch to expect I expect the opposite would occur. – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 12:15
  • @FumbleFingers: because 'turning up' is precisely something you cannot have an influence on since it is unknown to you before you actually see the person or animal arriving. – user58319 May 31 '14 at 12:25
  • @Araucaria: I get 3 results for "don't want you to leaving" and they're ungrammatical. // Inclusion of 'suddenly' seems to shift the preference away from the to-infinitive construction here, or at least further along the continuum. – Edwin Ashworth May 31 '14 at 19:58
  • @EdwinAshworth Quite right, thanks! :) That's a typo. Should read "don't want you leaving" compared to "don't want you to leave" Figures are correct for those entries. Agree that "suddenly" might have some effect here too. – Araucaria - Him May 31 '14 at 21:15
  • @FumbleFingers but try "don't want you leaving" (5,260) versus "don't want you to leave" (151,000). OP is entirely right that *want* far more often takes a clause with a so-called to-infinitive – Araucaria - Him May 31 '14 at 21:16
  • I get 898 000 for "don't want you leaving" on a raw Google search. This is far from insignificant (though I'm sure "don't want you to leave" will have far more hits). – Edwin Ashworth May 31 '14 at 22:19
  • @EdwinAshworth Sure thing. FumbleFingers' figures (and mine but not explicitly stated) were for Google books. Nearly a million hits is certainly something. I think the question's very interesting. – Araucaria - Him Jun 01 '14 at 00:52
  • @Araucaria, Edwin: The gerund usage was virtually non-existent a century ago, and only really took off in very recent decades, so you have to consider dates as well as totals. Personally I'd be more likely to use infinitive "Please stay. I don't want you to leave me", but gerund "You can have a Coke now, but I don't want you leaving your dinner". – FumbleFingers Jun 01 '14 at 11:36
  • There's very little difference, and most people don't ever notice when there is. – John Lawler Jul 15 '21 at 14:42

6 Answers6

3

I commented that I don't think OP's turning up was a gerund, but I'm somewhat backtracking on that point now. Whatever - even if it's not formally a gerund, it looks quite like one. And there's been a general tendency over the past century or so for gerunds to replace infinitive forms.

The main factor controlling the gerund/infinitive choice seems to be the specific verb involved. Thus, looking at a simpler construction...

He enjoys swimming (not He enjoys to swim)
He wants to swim (not He wants swimming)
He likes swimming/to swim (both are okay)

There's also this from englishpage.com, pointing out that infinitives sound more abstract...

Gerunds sound more natural and would be more common in everyday English.
Infinitives emphasize the possibility or potential for something and sound more philosophical.

Learning is important (normal subject)
To learn is important (abstract subject - less common)
The most important thing is learning (normal complement)
The most important thing is to learn (abstract complement - less common)

To which I would add my own example...

I like you to kiss me (sounds dated, formal, starchy to me, and all 6 results are from long ago)
I like you kissing me (sounds perfectly natural, but all 58 results are from the past couple of decades)

Putting all that together, what it means is native speakers today like using gerunds wherever possible, whereas a century ago they liked to use infinitives. Actually, I just used those two forms to illustrate my point. Strictly speaking if we go back far enough, native speakers had no choice (because using gerunds like that simply wasn't grammatically possible).

As to whether there's any semantic difference, I think the answer is No, not usually. But when I consider the following pair...

I hate to eat alone
I hate eating alone

...I can easily convince myself it's more likely the first speaker doesn't actually eat alone very often. There's more "immediacy" in the gerund/continuous verb form used by the second speaker, which suggests to me he's currently eating alone (or at least, frequently does so).

Here's another related context where the infinitive/gerund choice definitely makes a difference. I know it's only because of the "when", but still...

Sports teacher: "Okay, you kids get changed and go outside while I finish my paperwork - I want you running/to run round the track when I come out".

EDIT: By way of explaining @user58319's assertion that the infinitive "implies some kind of control or influence". This just arises because in some contexts the implied subject is in fact the speaker...

"I don't like to smoke in bed" (so I don't)
"I don't like smoking in bed" (so please can you not do it)

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • @user58319: I do really think you're stretching a point there! As I hope I've shown above, the biggest factor by far is simply gerund = modern. Semantic distinctions are usually minimal (if they exist at all) and probably vary on an almost "case by case" basis. And if I'm forced to distinguish "He likes to work" from "He likes working", for example, I would say the infinitive version is better able to carry the sense that he [sometimes] chooses to work [on personal projects] simply because he likes the activity. The more familiar gerund just suggests he likes doing his [necessary] job. – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 19:44
  • Your "immediacy" is just my idea of "powerlessness" in a different guise! The first speaker does all he can to avoid eating alone, and he is rather successful, whereas the second speaker does not like this situation – eating alone – but is powerless to change it. I agree that infinitives, like simple tenses, are – or have come to be felt to be – 'skeletal' (your 'abstract', 'philosophical') in comparison to gerunds, and continous tenses, which are 'fleshed out', alive… which is only logical since a continous tense shows an action in progress, 'presentifies' it… – user58319 May 31 '14 at 19:46
  • 1
    It seems to me you're trying to impose a single semantic distinction that simply doesn't exist. Crucially, the trend is to use gerunds more and more. And for any given context, once the gerund is "established", it takes over the "most likely" interpretation. So we look for a "slightly left-field" interpretation if the infinitive is used. But getting "established" is complex. Compare I like you doing that (normal), I like you to do that (bit weird), I liked you doing that (normal), I liked you to do that (very weird). Even *tense* affects what sounds "normal". – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 20:07
  • Clinging to rules I hope will make up for the years I did not spend in an English speaking country imbibing… modern usage! – user58319 May 31 '14 at 20:32
  • @user58319: I don't want to give the impression I know everything about what's going on here. It's a truly excellent question, and I'm disappointed to see only one other user besides me has upvoted it so far. Particularly when I see completely trivial questions collect several upvotes before being closed. Maybe your question is just too hard for the less insightful users here to even understand, but I'm cautiously optimistic that it might turn out to be a "slow burner" from which *I* might be able to learn something too (as a final resort, I can easily afford to throw bounties at it! :) – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 20:50
  • A major problem is the ill-defined nature of 'gerund', which involves the hopeless synonymy-with-hypernymy. One definition of 'gerund' is 'an -ing form used /functioning as a noun' (aka poss -ing). However, some people use 'gerund' to mean any -ing form. Thus the linked reference gives this as an example of a verb + gerund structure: 'She came running across the field.' I'd class this as the participle instead (in a phase structure); compare the auxiliary construction 'She was running across the field.' – Edwin Ashworth Jun 01 '14 at 07:20
  • @Edwin: Your comment has inspired me to think of a context where running/to run makes a definite semantic difference, but I'm not sure if it's strictly the usage OP is focussed on. – FumbleFingers Jun 01 '14 at 12:55
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Really did not expect that, considering the negativity my answer raised. I almost deleted it... Thanks for the appreciation. – fev Jul 19 '21 at 10:58
  • 1
    @fev: You obviously put quite some thought into your answer, which definitely enhanced my perception of the issues involved here. I don't necessarily think everyone (including myself! :) should have the same opinion about possible nuances of meaning here. But you've given me (and hopefully others, now and on into the future) some interesting food for thought - which I figured was the best I could hope for anyway (so thanks for giving me something to be appreciative of! :) – FumbleFingers Jul 19 '21 at 14:27
1

I agree; the use of the present participle here does seem rather illogical. However much we would like to think that English constructions are well-behaved, we'll quite often be disappointed. It might be instructive to examine the behaviour of other verbs in similar complex catenations here, after an example of a simple catenation:

He remembered paying.

is obviously (and famously – but I would use '-ing form' rather than 'gerund' here; see FF's comment) different in meaning from the catenation with the to-infinitive:

He remembered to pay.

So we see the participle 'paying' used in a punctive (completed short action) role.

With

I don't want him turning up.

I don't want him to turn up.

either is acceptable, and there is little change in meaning. This pair come close to OP's examples, but even the inclusion of the adverb 'suddenly' alters 'how it sounds'. 'I don't want him suddenly to turn up' sounds very formal, even starchy; 'I don't want him to suddenly turn up' sounds better but still not as idiomatic as 'I don't want him suddenly turning up'.

With

I didn't allow him to come.

the to-infinitive is mandatory.

With

I can't see/imagine him coming / turning up [...: he never goes to parties.]

the -ing form is mandatory, even though 'turn up' is punctive.

So, -ing form catenations are not restricted to continuous processes. Even where there otherwise seems a fairly straight choice, with the -ing form perhaps not as appropriate, it may be perversely preferred with some verbs. Choice is probably influenced by the over-formal sound of the to-infinitive alternative.

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
  • You agree… with yourself! Could you comment on your 'little change in meaning'because THIS is the whole point… sounds like 'there is something I know, but I won't tell you, because you wouldn't understand, anyway!' Highly irritating! – user58319 May 31 '14 at 13:32
  • I was agreeing with [the implications of] what you said in your original pre-edit question: Why not the more (usual)[predictable] structure "(not) to want someone to do something"? Why not "You don't want a hungry bear to appear ... The linked Wikipedia article discusses the differences in meaning of certain simple catenations. As far as I know, an equivalent list dealing with complex catenations does not exist. As for why certain catenations are permitted, others aren't, and some have counterparts with different meanings, I'd be surprised if the doctorate has yet been written. – Edwin Ashworth May 31 '14 at 13:41
  • Going on to your "Could you comment on your 'little change in meaning'" I was leaving a little leeway here. Others might claim a nuance suggested by one but not the other in this particular case, but I'd say register swamps that. – Edwin Ashworth May 31 '14 at 19:46
1

This Ngram of "don't want you *" shows that to (I'm sure it's not a preposition) is by far the most productive. So it's unlikely that not want someone/something to infinitive is somehow inferior to not want someone/something V-ing. If anything, it's the other way around.

I've heard somewhere that Ngram is different from Google Books, but I think the former carries more weight because it's more comprehensive. Having said that, I don't think there's any significant meaning difference between to-infinitive and V-ing after not want someone/something.

There's one thing I can think of, though, about how the V-ing can come after not want someone/something but not as readily after its positive counterpart want someone/something (unless you want to express the progressive aspect as in the example I want you running round the track when I come out suggested by @FumbleFingers). And that one thing is the possibility of native speakers parsing not want as a single verb such as dislike, mind or even resent. Note that these verbs allow someone/something V-ing but not someone/something to infinitive:

He disliked/minded/resented his daughter staying away from home.

*He disliked/minded/resented his daughter to stay away from home.

This does not mean that they mean "dislike/mind/resent etc." by saying not want. It's just that they could be treating not want as a single verb without changing its meaning. So there's no significant difference in meaning.

As long as they don't parse not want as a single verb, they still can freely use to infinitive. Therefore, the two structures can co-exist.

JK2
  • 6,553
0

… and here is why:

'(not) to want someone to do something' implies some kind of control or influence over what the speaker tries to encourage someone to do or discourage them from doing, some kind of power over them.

In the case of the bear, obviously, you just do not want the thing to happen but you know perfectly well you do not have any influence on it happening or not! Apart from taking precautions such as not keeping any food in or near the tent…

And it is more often the case with things we do not want to happen than with things we do want to happen; the negative can carry the idea or powerlessness, which would explain why 'not to want someone doing something' can be found together with 'not to want someone to do sth'!

There is a reason behind usage!

user58319
  • 4,084
  • 3
    I disagree with the statement that “‘(not) to want someone to do something’ implies some kind of control or influence”. Whether you use the infinitive or the participle, control or influence is entirely dependent on the context, not the grammatical structure. “I don’t want you to die!” is perfectly common, even though obviously we have no control or influence whatsoever over whether someone else will die or not. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 31 '14 at 12:13
  • 4
    I see absolutely no such distinction. None at all. Imagine, for example, a parachute instructor saying, “I’ll come round and double-check that you all have everything set up properly and safely. We don’t want you getting hurt on your very first jump!”. Are you seriously saying that would be a case of expressing a feeling a kind of powerlessness over the situation, while if he had said “we don’t want you to get hurt”, he would feel in control? That is quite obviously not the case. He’s doing what he can to influence the situation in either case. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 31 '14 at 12:28
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: 'I don't want you to die!' means 'I will do all I can for you not to die!'… and I want you to believe in my power to do so. 'I don't want you dying!' would sound fatalistic, I do not want this to happen but there is nothing I can do to prevent it… a very weak way of supporting anyone about to die! – – user58319 May 31 '14 at 12:31
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: 'you might get hurt, but we will do all we can to reduce that risk' (gerund) versus 'you won't die, don't even think about it!' (infinitive) – user58319 May 31 '14 at 12:37
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: avoiding liabilities… We never said you would not get hurt! – user58319 May 31 '14 at 12:51
  • More like jocular, light-hearted (participle) vs. serious, admonishing (infinitive). That’s the only difference I can force out of the different forms (and it’s only a tendency, not hard-and-fast). Nothing else than that. You’re trying to force a preconceived notion on to actual usage data that clearly contradicts the preconceived notion. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 31 '14 at 12:57
  • @JanusBahsJacquet: you must be jo… cularising! I know you are not. I know you are right, but English (to a foreigner) is a labyrinth – a thing of a-maze-ment – and when at a crossroads or a junction, you have to have some kind of rule or reasoning to help you choose. – user58319 May 31 '14 at 13:16
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – user58319 May 31 '14 at 13:53
  • 1
    I understand your point, and I agree there must be something governing the to verb/verbing choice in such constructions. I must be using some principle to predict reasonably accurately which pairs of verbs are more likely to favour -ing, before finding confirmation on Google Books. So far I'm not consciously aware what that "something" is, but I don't think it's a matter of whether you (or whoever the subject is) has any control over the activity. – FumbleFingers May 31 '14 at 14:29
  • 1
    'I/We don't want you dying' is in a less formal, less sombre, more tongue-in-cheek register. You wouldn't use that register with someone who was near death's door. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 01 '14 at 07:28
0

We are discussing the catenative verb don't want in a complex construction with a gerund-participial. The subject of the catenative verb is you and its object is the non-finite clause a hungry bear or other animal suddenly appearing in your tent, where the NP a hungry bear or other animal is the agent of the verb in gerund appearing. "Want" in the affirmative is generally said to be followed by a "to infinitive" (except for the concealed passives of the kitchen wants painting type). Even in the negative, if the subject of "want" is the same as the agent of the verb of the object clause, the to infinitive will be used ("I don't want to leave"). So it is good to narrow the issue you are raising to the particular instance of non-affirmative catenative "want" followed by an object clause where the agent of the verb is different from the subject of "want".

In theory, the difference in meaning between I don't want you doing and I don't want you to do is negligible. I found a short reference to the use of gerund-participials after want and don't want in Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pp. 1231-1232):

The gerund-participial with want generally has a progressive interpretation, but in non-affirmative contexts it can be non-progressive.

  • I want them standing when the Minister enters

is equivalent to

  • I want them to be standing when the Minister enters,

contrasting with non-progressive

  • I want them to stand when the Minister enters.

However, in

  • I don't want you bringing your dog with you,

the meaning is to bring, not to be bringing.

However, almost 20 years passed since that grammar was published and anyway it was only concerned with the progressive or non-progressive nuance of the meaning. Gerunds have seen an increase in use, and although it is difficult to find more exhaustive explanations on this issue, I think people in their conscience may have begun to give it a slight nuance. In your context, it looks like the author of the statement explains generally a situation in which this sudden turning up of the bear might happen every time the situation is repeated. So

You don't want a hungry bear or other animal suddenly appearing in your tent [every time you leave bits of food on the ground or keep unused food in open containers in the camp].

The author may have felt that

You don't want a hungry bear or other animal to suddenly appear in your tent.

is more punctual, for one particular situation, rather than for repeated instances of the same circumstances.

In support of that, I found this post of a native English speaker:

Go for the gerund, if you want to stress repeated action: "I don't want you coming home so late". I don't want you to come home so late,(using the infinitive), is more likely to infer the action happening once, or occasionally, of course depending on the context. (WordRef)

Here is another thread that agrees with the two nuances:

There's usually no difference intended in sentences like this, but here are a few comments on nuances. "I didn't want anyone thinking I was trying to be a pet of the teacher" sounds a bit like the 'anyone' might be thinking this for a long time. I didn't want that. "I didn't want anyone to think I was trying to be a pet of the teacher" sounds a bit like maybe the 'anyone' might just think this briefly.

Another post from an MA Linguistics says:

The nuance is slightly different.

“I don’t want you to do that” has the slight implication that you haven’t done it before. Mother says to child, “I brought some chips home, but I don’t want you to eat them.”

“I don’t want you doing that” implies that you were caught in the act of doing it, or have been in the habit of doing it. Mother says to child, “That’s the third time all the chips have disappeared! I don’t want you eating those chips!”

But it’s just a slight nuance. Really, either form could be used in either case.

This last post adds another slightly different nuance, that of habit, but the emphasis on repetitiveness conveyed by the gerund-participial and non-repetitiveness conveyed by the to infinitive is obvious. It could point to the habit that bears have of coming near humans when they smell food.

fev
  • 33,009
  • Fine detective work. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 12 '21 at 15:49
  • 2
    I don't understand how you could argue the OP's context supports a repeated action. Even if it's a repeated action by way of being a "habit", you cannot explain why the affirmative want doesn't allow V-ing for the same repeated action. – JK2 Jul 12 '21 at 15:53
  • @JK2 The OP did not ask to explain why the affirmative of "want" does not license V-ing. And the fact that it does not license it is very well documented. – fev Jul 12 '21 at 16:07
  • 1
    No, OP didn't. Regardless, I was just pointing that out to show that the "very well documented" behavior of the affirmative want does not support your logic. – JK2 Jul 12 '21 at 16:09
  • Also, it's a very bold argument that the verb usage could change so dramatically within just two decades that CaGEL cannot be trusted. Actually, it's not even two decades. Two other posts you've cited are written in 2011, which is less than a decade from CaGEL's publication. So you're essentially arguing that the verb usage has changed in several years. Good luck with that. More importantly, even if that were all true, it's hard to believe that people would be making that kind of subtle distinction when speaking/writing these constructions. – JK2 Jul 12 '21 at 16:11
  • @JK2 I did state in the beginning that it is good to narrow the issue you are raising to the particular instance of non-affirmative catenative "want" followed by an object clause where the agent of the verb is different from the subject of "want". So I am speaking about the non-affirmative form of "want", not of its affirmative. Language is like that, if one nuance is possible in the negative, it doesn not mean it will be the same in the affirmative. – fev Jul 12 '21 at 16:13
  • @JK2 I am sorry, but I did not say that CaGEL cannot be trusted. I only said that maybe people are starting to add nuances that were maybe not present or recorded at that time. – fev Jul 12 '21 at 16:14
  • Finally, the Ngram in my answer suggests that the "to infinitive" usage has exponentially increased since around 2000 whereas the "V-ing" usage has also increased during the same period but definitely not as dramatically. So honestly, I don't know what you mean by "gerunds have seen an increase in use". – JK2 Jul 12 '21 at 16:15
  • @JK2 The reverse appears to be true. Hard to see from the plot, but "to infinitive" about tripled since 2000 and "getting" and "going" did even better than that. – cruthers Jul 12 '21 at 22:15
  • @cruthers I think you're right. "V-ing" did do better than "to infinitive" in terms of the rate at which their usage increased over the last two decades. Still, I don't believe that the difference in the rate of their usage increase is enough to support the outlandish claim that somehow the usage has so dramatically changed that the usage description of the 2002 grammar by H&P should be revised. – JK2 Jul 13 '21 at 01:52
-2

I would simplify this by adding both would be possible in this particular situation.

However the use of 'appearing' puts you into the perspective of it happening at that moment of hearing the phrase spoken, rather than being a future idea. It makes it feel more present, thus more possible to the listener.

Pro ingles
  • 351
  • 1
  • 3