Erase /erasing

lingobingo said:

I suppose you could add “to” to the infinitive, but it’s better as it stands. “Erasing” doesn’t really work.

lingobingo said:

In that example as well, you can use either the full or the bare infinitive (i.e. the “to” is optional). But I still prefer the bare infinitive.

Dale Texas said:

I agree.

Dale Texas said:

Even though "to" is just one small quick word, without it the sentence is smoother and quicker, sounding and looking much more fluent and native.

lingobingo said:

In that example as well, you can use either the full or the bare infinitive (i.e. the “to” is optional). But I still prefer the bare infinitive.

Julienjing1 said:

The greatest thing our art does and our industry does is( erase) the lines in the sand,”
Should it be either 'to erase' or ' erasing' ?

Julienjing1 said:

1 The only good thing he has done to his village was help build the bridge.
2 The only thing he likes to do is watch movies.
3 The only thing he likes is watch movies.
Could you please tell me whether they are correct, thank you.

Forero said:

No, unless you make it the subject:

Erasing the lines in the sand is the greatest thing our art does and our industry does.

Note that the transitive verb do is required to make the bare infinitive construction work. The direct object of the two doeses here is "the greatest thing". A direct object with a form of "thing" or that can be replaced with a phrase containing "thing" is also required (e.g. all = "everything", what = "the thing that", nothing).

An example without a form of "to be":

He does nothing all day but sit there and write stories.

I can think of several ways to say what I think you mean in example 1:

The only good thing he has done for his village was when he helped build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village is that he helped build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village was helping (to) build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village was to help build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village is to help build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village is to have helped build the bridge.

With do, does, or did, the bare infinitive is best; wih doing, only an -ing form will do. Done can work with a bare infinitive, but I find that awkward.

Example 2 is fine.

Example 3, with no form of transitive do, does not work.

lingobingo said:

Those examples would read much better if the tenses matched:

The only good thing he did for his village was help build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village is help build the bridge.

lingobingo said:

If you want to speak good English, then it would be wise to follow standard practice, which is to match tenses in sentences such as those.

In your new example, yes, make would be much more idiomatic than making.

Julienjing1 said:

Thank you so much for your explanations.
I see the tenses in these examples are different, and I find it confusing. Shouldn't 'is' work with 'done'?
The only good thing he has done for his village was to help build the bridge.
The only good thing he has done for his village is to help build the bridge.

Forero said:

Is works here because of has (both present tense).

Two times are implicit in the context: the one time he did a good thing, and now, when he has done only that one good thing.

That one thing the only good thing he did, and it still the only good thing he has done because he has done anything good since then.

He n't done anything good except for one time: that time when he build the bridge.

Logically, building the bridge was doing something, but built the bridge is not doing anything, so I find the following sentence B more logical than A:

A. The only good thing he has done is that/when he has helped build the bridge.
B. The only good thing he has done is that/when he helped build the bridge.

And was can work because it agrees with helped:

C. The only good thing he has done was that/when he helped build the bridge.

Using when makes the purpose for was clearer, but using that does not make was wrong.

If we remove the tense from helped by replacing that he helped with to help, was has the additional purpose of supplying the correct implicit time to the infinitive, to avoid "to helped", which works in its way but, like sentence A, is less logical.

Julienjing1 said:

So what you are saying is that 2 is more logical than 1?
1.The only good thing he has done for his village is to have helped build the bridge.
2.The only good thing he has done for his village is help build the bridge.

Forero said:

Yes, among other things.