spend sth + V-ing / to V
NOSPAM
Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
(1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
(2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
If not, what are the differences?
-- DJ
Not a native speaker of English
dontbother
> Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
>
> (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
> (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
>
> If not, what are the differences?
Identical semantically, different in structure.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com
"Impatience is the mother of misery."
NOSPAM
> NOSPAM <n...@nospam.net> wrote
>
>> Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
>>
>> (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
>> (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
>>
>> If not, what are the differences?
>
> Identical semantically, different in structure.
>
>
Thanks!
How about these two?
(1)My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for us
(2)My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project for us
-- DJ
Mark Brader
>>>
>>> (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
>>> (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
Practically identical.
>>> If not, what are the differences?
1 means he spent the money for the purpose of remodeling.
2 means he spent the money as part of the process of remodeling.
>> Identical semantically, different in structure.
The effective meaning is the same, anyway. They both imply that the
remodeling was completed and the money spent on it.
> How about these two?
>
> (1) My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for us
> (2) My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project for us
(Note that 1 and 2 this time correspond to 2 and 1 last time.)
1 means he spent the time as part of the process of explaining.
2 means he spent the time for the purpose of explaining -- but that
doesn't make sense. So 2 is an unnatural formation this time.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The problem is that tax lawyers are
m...@vex.net | amazingly creative." -- David Sherman
NOSPAM
>> How about these two?
>>
>> (1) My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for us
>> (2) My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project for us
>
> (Note that 1 and 2 this time correspond to 2 and 1 last time.)
>
> 1 means he spent the time as part of the process of explaining.
> 2 means he spent the time for the purpose of explaining -- but that
> doesn't make sense. So 2 is an unnatural formation this time.
Thanks for your explanation!
I was thinking the "to V" could mean an action occurred later in time
after "spent". Boy, am I wrong!
- DJ
dontbother
>>>> Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
>>>>
>>>> (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
>>>> (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
>
> Practically identical.
>
>>>> If not, what are the differences?
>
> 1 means he spent the money for the purpose of remodeling.
"For the purpose of" is merely a verbosity that replaces "to".
> 2 means he spent the money as part of the process of remodeling.
"As part of the process of" is a nonsense phrase. Spending money
has nothing to do with remodeling. It has to do with paying for
something, whether one does it oneself or one has someone else do
it. Do we spend money "as part of the process of buying bread"? Is
buying bread a "process"? This is pretentious bullshit, not good
English.
>>> Identical semantically, different in structure.
>
> The effective meaning is the same, anyway. They both imply that
> the remodeling was completed and the money spent on it.
>
>> How about these two?
>>
>> (1) My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for
>> us (2) My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project
>> for us
>
> (Note that 1 and 2 this time correspond to 2 and 1 last time.)
>
> 1 means he spent the time as part of the process of explaining.
Yeah, you seem to think that everything is a buzzword -- I mean a
"process". Since when did adding verbiage aid understanding?
> 2 means he spent the time for the purpose of explaining -- but
> that doesn't make sense. So 2 is an unnatural formation this
> time.
You're right! It makes no more sense than your "explanation" of "he
spent a lot of money for the purpose of remodeling". This is an
ungainly -- but quite normal and natural -- formation for speakers
of contemporary business-speak and hypercorrect-speak and
pretentious-speak. The longer the phrase, the more important it
seems to such people.
The actual difference between these two sentences is subtle, if one
agrees that there is a difference, that is. And, by the way, it
should be "our teacher" or "the teacher" and "to us", not "for us"
in my dialect of American English.
The first sentence focuses on how much time the teacher spent, and
the student's implication is that it was a very long time to sit
and listen to an explanation.
The second sentence focuses on how long it took for the teacher to
explain the project, and the student's implication is that it could
have been done in much less time.
Well, those are my inferences, at least. Neither sentence needs the
added obfuscating verbiage.
NOSPAM
>>> How about these two?
>>>
>>> us (2) Our teacher spent two hours to explain the new project
>>> to us
>>
> agrees that there is a difference, that is.
> And, by the way, it
> should be "our teacher" or "the teacher" and "to us", not "for us"
> in my dialect of American English.
Thank you for the correction.
> The first sentence focuses on how much time the teacher spent, and
> the student's implication is that it was a very long time to sit
> and listen to an explanation.
>
> The second sentence focuses on how long it took for the teacher to
> explain the project, and the student's implication is that it could
> have been done in much less time.
>
> Well, those are my inferences, at least. Neither sentence needs the
> added obfuscating verbiage.
Now I get it. Thanks!
- DJ
rzed
news:oPudnYexu4IsIYnY...@rcn.net:
> dontbother wrote:
>> NOSPAM <n...@nospam.net> wrote
>>
>>> Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
>>>
>>> (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
>>> (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
>>>
>>> If not, what are the differences?
>>
>> Identical semantically, different in structure.
>>
Similar, rather than identical. If Jack himself were doing the
remodeling, the second formulation is slightly better. The first says
nothing about who did the actual work.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
> How about these two?
>
> (1)My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for us
> (2)My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project for us
>
I don't think I'd expect a native speaker to use "spent" in (2). If
the verb were "took", then both forms would be equivalent. It's not
the sentence structure, but the verb itself that changes things.
--
rzed
NOSPAM
>> How about these two?
>>
>> (1)My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for us
>> (2)My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project for us
>>
>
> I don't think I'd expect a native speaker to use "spent" in (2). If
> the verb were "took", then both forms would be equivalent. It's not
> the sentence structure, but the verb itself that changes things.
Hm... Is it safe for me to assume that (2) is correct, native speakers
can still understand it, but it's just that it's rarely seen?
-- DJ
A. Gwilliam
I don't think it's a naturally formed sentence for a native speaker.
Somehow the "to" and the "for" clash uncomfortably. But I think the
real problem is that "two hours" is a period of time during which the
action concerned was being continuously performed, and thus requires a
continuous tense.
Apologies if this has already been answered; I'd already deleted the
rest of the thread when I came across this post!
--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
NOSPAM
> NOSPAM wrote:
>
>> rzed wrote:
>>
>>>> How about these two?
>>>>
>>>> (2)My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project to(*) us
>>>>
>>> I don't think I'd expect a native speaker to use "spent" in (2). If
>>> the verb were "took", then both forms would be equivalent. It's not
>>> the sentence structure, but the verb itself that changes things.
>> Hm... Is it safe for me to assume that (2) is correct, native speakers
>> can still understand it, but it's just that it's rarely seen?
>
> I don't think it's a naturally formed sentence for a native speaker.
> Somehow the "to" and the "for" clash uncomfortably. But I think the
> real problem is that "two hours" is a period of time during which the
> action concerned was being continuously performed, and thus requires a
> continuous tense.
This explanation is very good too!
> Apologies if this has already been answered; I'd already deleted the
> rest of the thread when I came across this post!
>
No no, my apologies. Franke pointed out that "for" should be "to", and I
forgot to correct it.
-- DJ
(*) was "for" and should be "to"
--
-------------
www.english.com.tw
-------------
dontbother
> NOSPAM <n...@nospam.net> wrote
>> dontbother wrote:
>>> NOSPAM <n...@nospam.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
>>>>
>>>> (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
>>>> (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
>>>>
>>>> If not, what are the differences?
>>>
>>> Identical semantically, different in structure.
>
> Similar, rather than identical. If Jack himself were doing the
> remodeling, the second formulation is slightly better. The first
> says nothing about who did the actual work.
>
themselves when they say things like "We remodeled the house last
year." If that were a standard phrase meaning "We did the
remodeling ourselves", then the people they speak to wouldn't have
to ask whether they did it themselves or had it done by someone
else. It is not at all safe to assume something unstated and not
necessarily but only possibly implied. Perhaps people say "We
redecorated the house" more often than "remodeled the house", and
what they usually mean by "we redecorated" is that they had a
decorator come in and do it for them in exchange for "a lot of
money".
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> How about these two?
>>
>> (1)My teacher spent two hours explaining the new project for us
>> (2)My teacher spent two hours to explain the new project for us
>>
>
> I don't think I'd expect a native speaker to use "spent" in (2).
> If the verb were "took", then both forms would be equivalent.
> It's not the sentence structure, but the verb itself that
> changes things.
Yes, I'd probably say "took".
A. Gwilliam
> what they usually mean by "we redecorated" is that they had a
> decorator come in and do it for them in exchange for "a lot of
> money".
Perhaps there's a pondial difference, but I would usually interpret "we
redecorated" as meaning that they did the work themselves; contrast
with "we had it redecorated".
dontbother
> dontbother wrote:
>
>> what they usually mean by "we redecorated" is that they had a
>> decorator come in and do it for them in exchange for "a lot of
>> money".
>
> Perhaps there's a pondial difference, but I would usually
> interpret "we redecorated" as meaning that they did the work
> themselves; contrast with "we had it redecorated".
I don't think it's pondial, but just because there is a perfectly
reasonable and correct way of saying something clearly doesn't mean
that all speakers use it. Japanese has a tense that uses an infix
to indicate that the speaker "had something done", but native
anglophones -- americanophones in particular -- are notoriously bad
at using auxiliary verbs and so frequently fail to use the forms
that would be available to them if they understood them. Therefore,
IMHO, it's dangerous to assume anything unstated. You can make that
inference given the sentence, but what the sentence actually means
will naturally depend on who says it.
NOSPAM
<snipped>
> ...Japanese has a tense that uses an infix
> to indicate that the speaker "had something done", but native
> anglophones -- americanophones in particular -- are notoriously bad
> at using auxiliary verbs and so frequently fail to use the forms
> that would be available to them if they understood them. Therefore,
> IMHO, it's dangerous to assume anything unstated. You can make that
> inference given the sentence, but what the sentence actually means
> will naturally depend on who says it.
I'll keep this in mind.
Thanks!
-- DJ
rzed
news:Xns9847E90...@139.175.55.249:
I didn't express myself clearly, I see.
Formulation 1 focuses on the overall effect: the entirely of the
remodeling event cost a lot of money. Formulation 2 focuses on the
action of remodeling.
You are absolutely correct in saying that either formula could be
used regardless of who did the actual work. People do generally
talk about building projects they contract to be done in terms
that are indistinguishable from those they perform themselves.
However, if I *were* doing the work myself, I would regard the
second form as more accurately describing the situation: I spent a
lot of money while [I was] remodeling the house. That's why I said
it was *slightly* better. Seen from the perspective of a finished
project, the practical difference disappears.
--
rzed
dontbother
Yes, I agree with this. There is a difference in focus, and that
gives the sentences slightly different meanings when they are
analyzed, but not necessarily when they are spoken or written by
the speaker/writer.
> You are absolutely correct in saying that either formula could
> be used regardless of who did the actual work. People do
> generally talk about building projects they contract to be done
> in terms that are indistinguishable from those they perform
> themselves.
>
> However, if I *were* doing the work myself, I would regard the
> second form as more accurately describing the situation: I spent
> a lot of money while [I was] remodeling the house. That's why I
> said it was *slightly* better. Seen from the perspective of a
> finished project, the practical difference disappears.
I would use use "He spent a lot of money having the house
remodeled" in edited prose, but I don't know what I'd write first
or what I'd say.
I've been reading a lot of Roald Dahl to my son these past few
months, and I'm surprised at many of his usages. When I listen to
myself talking to my wife and son, I'm often surprised by my own
usages.
wowawundo...@yahoo.com.au
They have exactly the same meaning but a different structure, as the
first replier stated.
--
Galactica 459321
Games that I like to play
<a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
<a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>
goodmanl...@yahoo.com.au
both this guy's and the first replier's post are incredibly right!!!!!!!
the Omrud
> wowawundo...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > NOSPAM wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
> > >
> > > (1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
> > > (2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
> > >
> > > If not, what are the differences?
> >
> > They have exactly the same meaning but a different structure, as the
> > first replier stated.
>
> both this guy's and the first replier's post are incredibly right!!!!!!!
If you're going to hang around in AUE, a few little things would help
in the smooth running of the group:
a) Can you fix your sig separator? It needs a space following the
two hyphens. And the sig itself is rather long and unnecessary in
this forum.
b) We don't go in for extended punctuation - one exclamation mark is
sufficient.
c) I hesitate to mention it, but it's rather boorish to follow up
your own postings with hearty agreement purporting to come from
another poster. Unless, of course, it's your brother, using the same
computer as you in Canberra, in which case could you ask him to stop?
Thanks,
--
David
=====
A. Gwilliam
> b) We don't go in for extended punctuation - one exclamation mark is
> sufficient.
I refer the Right Honourable Gentlemen to Terry Pratchett's thoughts on
the matter.
Robert Lieblich
>
> the Omrud wrote:
>
> > b) We don't go in for extended punctuation - one exclamation mark is
> > sufficient.
>
> I refer the Right Honourable Gentlemen to Terry Pratchett's thoughts on
> the matter.
Terry Pratchett????!!
--
Bob Lieblich
!
Wood Avens
Yup, that's him all right.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Oleg Lego
>Are the following two sentences identical in meanings?
>
>(1) Jack spent a lot of money to remodel the living room.
>(2) Jack spent a lot of money remodeling the living room.
>
>If not, what are the differences?
Your question was fine, but the subject line is meaningless drivel.
R H Draney
A point some of us overlooked, while others never noticed it in the first place
because they can't see subject lines....r
--
"Screwing Type Gloomy - Giant Swing" --- Gloomy makes your world turn
around! Watch out for this charming toy teddy-bear that amazes you with
his agile walking skills through a special wind-up mechanism. Enjoy the
joyful company of this active playing wonder right away!
NOSPAM
Thank you for telling me. I didn't realize that ...
What I wanted to ask was actually "When to use 'to V' after 'spend', and
Ving ..." And the reason why I wanted to asked that question was because
a learner asked the above two sentences at a forum.
I checked Longman Language Activator, Longman/Oxford's Dictionaries for
learners, other regular dictionaries, and none of them mention/list
usages/examples with 'spend sth + to V' structure. However, it's
widely used (which I learned later), that's why I got so confused.
Anyway, I searched this "spend sth + to V" usage on AUE and got some
examples. I'm trying to look for a 'pattern' that I can add to my book...
Mike Lyle
NOSPAM wrote:
[...]
> What I wanted to ask was actually "When to use 'to V' after 'spend', and
> Ving ..." And the reason why I wanted to asked that question was because
> a learner asked the above two sentences at a forum.
>
> I checked Longman Language Activator, Longman/Oxford's Dictionaries for
> learners, other regular dictionaries, and none of them mention/list
> usages/examples with 'spend sth + to V' structure. However, it's
> widely used (which I learned later), that's why I got so confused.
>
> Anyway, I searched this "spend sth + to V" usage on AUE and got some
> examples. I'm trying to look for a 'pattern' that I can add to my book...
This is the EFL "blackboard" problem. There are some abbreviations
regularly used by many teachers of English as a foreign language which
are not generally recognised by anybody else -- "sb" and "sth" for
"somebody" and "something". In fact, "v." is the ordinary abbreviation
for "verb", but it might not be obvious to all readers especially when
capitalised as "V". Amid the abbreviations, "+" and "/" made the whole
thing look very strange, but fortunately your question made it clear.
--
Mike.
NOSPAM
> This is the EFL "blackboard" problem. There are some abbreviations
> regularly used by many teachers of English as a foreign language which
> are not generally recognised by anybody else -- "sb" and "sth" for
> "somebody" and "something". In fact, "v." is the ordinary abbreviation
> for "verb", but it might not be obvious to all readers especially when
> capitalised as "V". Amid the abbreviations, "+" and "/" made the whole
> thing look very strange, but fortunately your question made it clear.
>
I see. Even though I heard something similar from some AUEers, but
I forgot completely about it .... (One reason is that I literally
"grew up" with them and am so used to it..... Thanks to my English
education in Taiwan ...)
I'll be more careful with my subject lines in the future. Thank you for
your explanation!
-- DJ
Peter Moylan
> Oleg Lego filted:
>> Your question was fine, but the subject line is meaningless drivel.
>
> A point some of us overlooked, while others never noticed it in the first place
> because they can't see subject lines....r
I'm able to see them if I look, but I choose not to; it wastes too much
time.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Oleg Lego
I had no problem deciphering the symbology in your subject line, but I
have seen this so-called abbreviation "sth" far too often. It is not
an abbreviation. It is something invented by someone who has, at best,
a rudimentary knowledge of English. It should never be used. Not ever.
Sorry for the rant, but it showed up once too often.
dontbother
[...]
> I had no problem deciphering the symbology in your subject line,
> but I have seen this so-called abbreviation "sth" far too often.
> It is not an abbreviation. It is something invented by someone
> who has, at best, a rudimentary knowledge of English. It should
> never be used. Not ever.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but it showed up once too often.
It's standard ESL/EFL symbology. All ESL/EFL teachers and students
know it. That means that it's part of English usage. I would suggest
that you learn to deal with it or ignore it.
Peacenik
news:e1omh21bp4r2ksgjg...@4ax.com...
>
> I had no problem deciphering the symbology in your subject line, but I
> have seen this so-called abbreviation "sth" far too often. It is not
> an abbreviation. It is something invented by someone who has, at best,
> a rudimentary knowledge of English. It should never be used. Not ever.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but it showed up once too often.
The notation in the subject line is frequently used in TESOL applications:
sth (something), sb (somebody), V (verb), V-ing (-ing form of a verb), /
(or), etc.
Mike Lyle
dontbother wrote:
> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> wrote
> [...]
> > I had no problem deciphering the symbology in your subject line,
> > but I have seen this so-called abbreviation "sth" far too often.
> > It is not an abbreviation. It is something invented by someone
> > who has, at best, a rudimentary knowledge of English. It should
> > never be used. Not ever.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant, but it showed up once too often.
>
> It's standard ESL/EFL symbology. All ESL/EFL teachers and students
> know it. That means that it's part of English usage. I would suggest
> that you learn to deal with it or ignore it.
It does seem still to be limited to EFL circles, but it would be quite
useful to others once they'd got used to it. I was thrown for a moment
the first time I met "qqn" and "qqc" ("quelqu'un" and "quelquechose")
in a French dictionary, but they're second nature to me now.
--
Mike.