After can see/hear, can the bare infinitive be used?    e.g.,       I could see John get on the bus.     We can say "I could see John getting on the bus," but is it possible to say "I could see John get on the bus."  This is in response to Roguemue's comment that this is a replicant of a post. Roguermue's suggested post is about the verb hear + personal pronoun: this post is about the modal + can + see/hear + infinitive without to. To go on further, as posted down below, it was my assumption that the construction is okay, but Swan, Practical English Usage, wrote that it's an invalid construction "After can see/hear only the -ing structure is used. I could see John getting on the bus. (NOT J could see John get ... ) These structures can be used after passive forms of hear and see. In this case, the infinitive has to." (Practical English Usage, 242, pg. 222)   I am looking to either confirm Swan's usage rule or to find opposing evidence.
16165
"Heard me [infinitive]" vs. "heard me [present participle]"             At that time, you wouldn't have heard me talk about it.   At that time, you wouldn't have heard me talking about it.         At that time, you wouldn't have heard me condemn it.   At that time, you wouldn't have heard me condemning it.         Which one of the above sentences are incorrect and why?
70093
I know for a fact that for some verbs like 'say', 'indicate', 'know', 'claim', the deletion of 'that' is usually optional, though it's safer to include it. However,  does the same apply when 'that' is used to linked a subject to a independent clause?   To clarify with an example:   The worst thing is you don't even know who did it.  Or  The worst thing is THAT you don't even know who did it.   Which one is grammatically correct, if not both?  Note: I am having trouble finding something to refer to that specifically discusses the omitting of 'that' after verb-to-be. Providing me with a link would be greatly appreciated.  Many thanks in advance.
119164
After ______ MA Economics he joined the London School of Economics.  I am confused about using "passing" or "having passed"?  *Edit - I did some research and from what I gathered, the answer is "passing" because using "having passed" with "after" will bring a sense of redundancy. The "having passed" form of the verb has the "after" inherent in it.
118920
This came up when reviewing a written English exercise, and I realized that I don't entirely trust my intuition on the answer.  Which of the following is correct?  Or are both valid?  (Or is it strongly advisable to rewrite the sentence in some other way?)   "I see what appears to be a man and his son." "I see what appear to be a man and his son."
121287
I'd like to know how exactly 'infinitive' modifies a noun.        I suggest you write out the speech you will be giving at the conference and practice it as many times as possible. When you think you're ready, gather up some people to listen to your speech, so you can have a rehearsal before the conference starts.      what's the meaning of people to listen to your speech?  (a) people who is willing to listen to your speech.  (b) people who is able to listen to your speech.        If you need anyone to talk with about this matter, just remember that I'm always here.      what's the meaning of anyone to talk with about this matter?  (c) anyone who is willing to talk with you about this matter.  (d) anyone that you can talk with about this matter.  I don't think there's an answer among abcd, so please let me know know to transform it to a relative clause.
5671
Consider this:     I like to eat here.   vs     I would eat here.   It appears to me that "to" has nothing to do with the infinitive form of the verb that follows. It is, in this example,  an integral part of like to, not of to eat.  Is my thinking flawed? If you think it is, could you please explain which form of the verb "eat" is used in the second example, if not the infinitive?
1669
I tried to open the door. I tried opening the door   We can use both infinitive and gerund with verb "try" as used in above sentences. Does it change the meaning of the  sentence if use gerund or infinitive?.(here i don't know if the meaning of sentences is changed.)     The same confusion arise in these two sentences.  1.I stopped seeing him. 2. I stopped to see him.(But in case of these two sentence i know the meaning is changed but don't know exactly what the change is).
35319
This question is relatively simple. I don't understand why we never use passive form of to infinitive after the adjective unless the subject is "it".  For example:     He is difficult to please.   People consider the example above a correct sentence. But:     He is difficult to be pleased.    People, for example, my teacher, said it sounds wrong and told me not to write this type of sentence. Is it grammatically flawed, or is it just a stylistic choice?
4411
I am pretty much sure that for native speakers the issue I am going to bring up might look as an uncalled question as they can easily figure out which form of a verbal part of speech should be used, be it a gerund, an infinitive, or a bare infinitive. However, it can be pretty much misleading for a foreigner because the same construction works differently with different words and I don’t see a logical explanation. For example:  The purpose of this article is to analyze the issue…  My hobby is reading. One may assume, and many foreigners really come to this conclusion, that it’s OK to switch the “gerund” and “infinitive” as the meaning will stay the same, that is:  The purpose of this article is analyzing the issue… (same as 1 above)  My hobby is to read. (same as 2 above)   However, as I was told, this assumption is erroneous. Another example: His task was watching after them. (not good) His task was to watch after them. Is there any principle which governs the choice of the right form in such cases?
93196
As a rule, we don't use the passive voice with "let". "Allow" or "permit" is normally used instead:      We were allowed to do whatever we wanted.      We were permitted to drive the vehicle.   According to the , we don't usually use the passive with "let", but are there any exceptions?
9983
Can anybody tell me the difference between the following two sentences:  He saw me talking to her. He saw me talk to her.  Please let me know if both the statements are valid and grammatically correct. If valid, please explain the meaning of both the statements and what is the difference between the two.
105394
I thought we can use perfect infinitive construction to talk about plans which didn't happen. For instance:     I was to have started work last week, but I changed my mind.   But what about that construction:     I'm sorry to have disturbed you.   Both two these examples were taken from M. Swan from the regarding sections.
111560
In which way can the verb 'allow' be used? There is always some confusion and apparently it's often intuitively used wrongly. Which form corresponds to correct English, eventually depending on context (see below)?  1: allow + to + infinitive: It allows to do something. 2: allow + verb+ -ing: It allows doing something. 3: allow + pronoun + to + infinitive: It allows me to do something. 4: allow + pronoun + verb+ -ing: It allows me doing something. 5: allow + noun: It allows something, 6: allow + noun + verb: It allows something to be done.
44677
As it is common with people from my country, I have an immense difficulty with prepositions in English, especially with the use of in and on.   When the preposition indicates the position of the object it is a bit easier to decide which one to use, but as it requires thinking from me, I still say things like "I put the bill in the fridge", "my pencil is on my bag", etc, even though if I think about it, I would know how to say it correctly.  Of course, even in those cases where the preposition indicates position the decision is not always clear, as is the case for example with "on the bus" (you are not on top of the bus, you are inside the bus) or "he is in bed" (you are not inside the bed, you are on top of your bed).  Other cases are even less clear, and I believe there is no real rule to decide what should be said; the person should just know it. Two examples are "in a bad mood", "you are on my mind".  So my first question is whether there is really no rule to help me. The second question refers to two of the cases where I still don't know whether to use in or on:   good luck on/in your exam in/on the list   The last one is especially important to me, as I have asked a number of native speakers, and each time I get a different answer. The only consensus seems to be the case where you say "on top of the list". Apart from that, some people will say that I should say "his name is in the list" whereas others think I should say "his name is on the list". And yeah, a couple of people did tell me that I can use either.  Can someone help me?
55689
Incident which happened a week ago:      Me to Kate: "Where are you going"?   Kate: "I'm going to the cinema".   Now today I happen to tell this story to Jim and I say,      "I met Kate a week ago."   Jim: What did she say?   Me: "Kate said that she 'is' going to the cinema".    My question is, is the usage of 'is' grammatically correct? Here, at the time of reporting after a week I don't know if she's still going to the cinema or not and even then I use 'is' will this be grammatically correct?
97888
I have two questions here:   To which action we can use Stop + gerund? And to which action we can use Stop + to + infinitive?
33242
As a BrE. speaker, there are come constructions using verbs in their present continuous form which just sound wrong. The best example being, "I am loving Stack Exchange."  After reading around the internet, all the information I can find seems to be addressing the difference in usage and meaning between -ing and infinitives such as "he went on to sing the National Anthem" and "he went on singing..."  Is there a rule as to which verbs can or should be used in a continuous form "I am drinking tea" and those which shouldn't, "I am loving this tea so much right now*"  Thanks  *In a thick Californian accent!