0

Is a sentence like the following correct English?

This search engine makes it hard for less popular sites to be found.

Variations would be

X makes it easy/difficult for Y to be discovered/recognized.

There are various similar sentences that seem to be used: A Google search for

"makes it * for * to be"

returns for example

This makes it possible for a protocol to be defined in ASN.1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASN.1)

but their thickness makes it difficult for them to be processed (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49234054)

This makes it easier for a sample to be taken (https://www.nhsinform.scot/tests-and-treatments/blood-tests)

Each NFT acts as a digital signature that makes it impossible for them to be exchanged for... (https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/blockchain-tutorial/what-is-nft)

A JVM also makes it possible for the bytecode to be recompiled by a just-in-time compiler (https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/compiler)

Are all of the above sentences good English, are they all bad English, or is there a key difference that makes some good and some bad?

jake n
  • 101
  • 3
    Does this answer your question? To infinitive used after adjective {here, hard/easy/difficult for X to be found/discovered/recognised} tough-movement – Edwin Ashworth Jul 29 '23 at 11:43
  • I think they''re awkward / ugly passive usages. More naturally, This search engine makes it hard to find* less popular sites, X makes it easy/difficult to discover/recognize Y.* – FumbleFingers Jul 29 '23 at 11:45
  • @FumbleFingers yes, that would be more "natural", however I want to point out the effect for the sites / site owners, not for the users. – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 11:55
  • @EdwinAshworth thanks, I suppose it does, studying it. – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 11:58
  • I don't see the point. Your readers are who they are - it's not like they need you to mangle your syntax just to remind them you care more about their actual sites than about the people who might visit those sites. – FumbleFingers Jul 29 '23 at 11:59
  • @FumbleFingers My original formulation is mainly a statement about the sites, your formulation is mainly a statement about the users. All the examples that I have added could also be expressed in a form similar to your proposal, however the writers (Wikipedia, NHS, BBC) did not decided to do that. – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 13:30
  • @EdwinAshworth I'm not sure if this is that similar to To infinitive used after adjective. If I understand correctly, the examples that I added would all be incorrect if this was the case. – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 13:34
  • @jaken: It's up to you what you learn from this site. But discovering that your examples are syntactically valid doesn't seem to me to be as useful as learning the general principle that you should avoid passive constructions wherever there's a reasonable alternative. Like I said, no audience is going to think your text is somehow "better" because it focuses on the "experience" of actual sites rather than of the visitors to those sites. – FumbleFingers Jul 29 '23 at 14:03
  • No; you've changed the parameters. Now you need to look up other previous questions dealing with uses of to-infinitive clauses. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 29 '23 at 14:08
  • @EdwinAshworth Can you give me a hint? What parameters? What's the key difference? – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 14:15
  • 2
    Ah; on re-reading, they just get more complicated. // The original example << This search engine makes it hard for less popular sites to be found. >> would probably more usually be rephrased << This search engine makes it hard to find less popular sites. >> This uses tough-movement. The duplicate question's accepted answer expands << The orangutans are difficult to please >> as << The orangutans are difficult for people to please [them] >> though the sentence gets more and more cumbersome; Araucaria is using this as a teaching device rather than a suggested equally idiomatic alternative. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 29 '23 at 15:04
  • @EdwinAshworth I see, thanks. I've added a last question, I'm still not sure how you would answer it. – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 15:38
  • @FumbleFingers Maybe it's both useful – jake n Jul 29 '23 at 15:40
  • @EdwinAshworth: Araucaria is using this as a teaching device* rather than a suggested equally idiomatic alternative. That looks like a very salient point here, and probably applies to many other contexts arising on ELL where it hasn't* been explicitly presented. – FumbleFingers Jul 29 '23 at 16:20

0 Answers0