1

A recent article in The New Yorker included this phrase: "...forbade him to represent Israel in bridge for an additional 18 months...". I would have written " forbade him from representing Israel". Which is correct, and why?

L.Paros
  • 11

1 Answers1

-2

As it's "to forbid to", here to is fine ; it's just a question of language but you can either prevent from.

Concerning "forbid someone [from ?] doing something" and "forbid him to do it", as the restriction is enacted from above - ie. in the normative order - to the subject, on purpose to prohibit the active behavior of this one on something or to do something, the prohibition does not emanate from what is forbidden itself. So you may find "forbid from" doing something but it's not correct. (& for my part, "forbid from" is worst than "prevent to", which is neither correct.)

Expressions of prevention, prohibition, banning, exclusion or stopping actions take gerund-participle complements in PPs headed by from. The verbs are :

  1. ban,
  2. hinder,
  3. keep,
  4. prevent,
  5. prohibit &
  6. stop.

I guess to "forbid from" could derive from such verbs but to forbid isn't in that list (cf. Cambridge Grammar, last ed. p. 835 in fine.)

So it is not to "forbid from" (...) but only in correct AmE to forbid to ; however in InE (idianEnglish) I'd catch the sense :)

DAVE
  • 669
  • 1
    I don't see why it's relevant to OP's question, but in what context is *prevent to* valid? – FumbleFingers Mar 08 '16 at 15:37
  • to is more usual but we find : that prevent to find common solutions ; prevent to happen again ; prevent to disclose etc. – DAVE Mar 09 '16 at 10:18
  • That's not a usage I've ever come across. Nothing in NGrams,, and while OED says that prevent + gerund without *from* has sometimes been criticized as incorrect, they don't mention the possibility of using *to* instead. Is it "Indian English"? – FumbleFingers Mar 09 '16 at 12:49
  • Prevent from should be the sole right form in modern English. But prevent to is "affordable" with no need to pay a ticket for Bombay. (Take notice guys, I add "to" because I thought someone would have requested it...) – DAVE Mar 09 '16 at 13:10
  • I've just trawled through the 80% of OED usages marked "obsolete" - so far as I can see, prevent to** was never "valid". It never had any currency either. As I write, nobody has cared enough about either the question or the answer to cast an upvote, so I'll start the ball rolling with a downvote because I think it's misleading to suggest this usage is in any way credible. – FumbleFingers Mar 09 '16 at 13:28
  • I never suggested this usage but only mentioned it... But if you'd rather like this I may edit my answer on purpose to cancel the 2 last words because I never use this form & am always reluctant when I see it. So just tell me... – DAVE Mar 09 '16 at 13:39
  • That's the only reason for my downvote, so if you remove those last two words I'll happily cancel it. But I won't upvote because I don't think you've meaningfully addressed the usages forbid someone [from] doing something and forbid him to* do it*, as asked about by the OP. – FumbleFingers Mar 09 '16 at 13:55
  • OK I edit because I add "to" to cover the full range of (ill-)options – DAVE Mar 09 '16 at 14:03
  • Do you have any reference that says forbid him from verb-ing is ungrammatical? I would have thought the two grammatical options were forbid him to verb and forbid him from verb-ing. – Peter Shor Mar 09 '16 at 15:23
  • No as "Forbid to" is fine ! But "forbid from" should be replaced by "prevent from" if you need "from". Here the gramma joins the normative point : You're not forbidden from something but by a positive prescription, which rules the case, to do what is not allowed. – DAVE Mar 09 '16 at 15:33
  • I found the gramma reason in a gramma book ; so I edited my previous answer.... – DAVE Mar 10 '16 at 10:36