VOOZH about

URL: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/criticize.2878219/

⇱ criticize | WordReference Forums

Menu
Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

criticize

Silver

Senior Member
Chinese,Cantonese,Sichuan dialect
Hi,

I read a sentence in dictionary.cambridge. (I read sentences there for my students. Most of them are just beginners and I will direct them to our dictionary soon.)

We'll get nowhere if all you can do is .

I wonder if it should be "to criticize" or "criticizing" here.

Thanks a lot
"To criticize" would work, but would sound somewhat less natural to me. "Criticizing" would sound wrong.

The construction (this use of the bare infinitive) is the same as in sentences like "All he does is play video games all day" and "All she could do was stare in wonder."
Hi Glenfarcias. Do you think that "to criticize" is acceptable.

"The only thing possible is to criticise" works as does "it is possible to criticise"
"You can to criticise" of course does not work and I think, by analogy "All you can do is to criticise" doesn't work either.
Yes, the literature shows that it is acceptable. Take a look at the Google Books results for (e.g.) "all * can do is to": Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, "All that we can do is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio"; Lawrence in Lady Chatterley's Lover, "Set the mind and the reason to cock it over the rest, and all they can do is to criticize, and make a deadness."
Hi, everyone.

Thanks a lot for your help. I am surprised to read your comments.

The construction (this use of the bare infinitive) is the same as in sentences like "All he does is play video games all day" and "All she could do was stare in wonder."

My doubt: "Is" is a verb, which Chinese English learners would call it "be verb", "be verb" includes "am, is are". This is a very simple grammar principle for almost all the students in China. Let us look at the sentence "is" and "play video games all day". "Play video games all day" is a verbal phrase, so two verbs don't work when they are together, right.

I hope someone can elaborate on this.

Thanks a lot
There can only be one main verb form in a sentence or a clause. The main verb form can sometimes indicate person (he goes) and always indicates time (he went). An infinitive, with or without 'to', is not a main verb. A phrase is a group of words without a main verb. So, 'play video games all day' is, as you say, a verbal phrase, but not a clause.
'He played video games all day when he was supposed to be working', is a sentence with two clauses. 'Playing video games when you are supposed to be working is cheating your employer' has one main verb and three phrases, one participle as subject and the other as object with a 'to' infinitive dependent on the main verb.

I think we need to focus on modern English and examples from the 19th century aren't much use. Nor is learning English grammar from dictionary phrases.
'criticize' is enough,
I think we need to focus on modern English and examples from the 19th century aren't much use. Nor is learning English grammar from dictionary phrases.


I picked the first two examples from well-known writers I came across, but the construction with "to" is also widely used in modern writing, as a quick search will show. I think I came across an example from Tom Wolfe as well.

Don't get me wrong, I still prefer it without the "to."
All I can do is agree with Glenfarclas's conclusion in post #3. ("To agree" would sound odd to me.)
Back
Top Bottom