Talk:to

2005
I just rolled back Jon Harald Søby's change since all the examples given are indeed in the infinitive. You can see this because the verb is not inflected and many include a primary inflected verb - secondary verbs are generally in the infinitive. &mdash; Hippietrail 16:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Where does this sense go?

To indicate approval, just nod., In order to go to France, you have to take a TGV/airplane/ferry. In Dutch this gets translated as 'om', in French as 'pour', in spanish 'para'. Polyglot 09:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Different words
This may just be me, but aren't the preposition 'to', and 'to' used as an infinitive-marker (where it's a particle) separate words? Technically, the second one isn't even a full word (see also another particle, "'s"). My arguement would be along the same lines that although 'report' (the noun) and 'report' (the verb) are identical in many forms, they fulfill very different roles, and merely happen to look alike. Any opinions would be appreciated, especially from a trained linguist. Xyzzyva 11:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are different. You can’t replace the infinitive marker to with another preposition such as into or toward. It is a purely grammatical thing like -ing. - T AKASUGI Shinji 03:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Isn't 'to' usually pronunciated as /tʃu/?


 * No, it’s /ə/, /ɾə/, /tə/, or /tu/; never /tʃu/. —Stephen 17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling of "too" requires ety split
Page is a bit dauntingly big for me to bother right now. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Attitudinal Adverb
I wonder, is there not a recognizably distinct use of the preposition to express how something is received? I am thinking here of prepositional phrases which function as adverbial phrases. One kind of construction, for instance, is: "to his surprise" / "to her amazement" / "to our chagrin" / "to their consternation" / etc. A closely related construction is: "to my mind" / "to my way of thinking" / "not to my taste" / "not to my liking" / etc. Another usage is to modify verbs in the passive voice: "the play was received to great acclaim" / "the death penalty was reintroduced to widespread disapproval" Grandmotherfrompeoria (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also "it sounds like a bad idea to me". Equinox ◑ 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Equinox is probably right, about it being a bad idea. It's probably not a recognizably distinct use. In languages where nouns and pronouns have more discriminating case endings than English, the expressions "sounds to me", "seems to me", etc. translate to dative, while "to my mind", "to our chagrin", "to great acclaim", etc. translate to instrumental. But dative and instrumental case endings are long gone from English. Grandmotherfrompeoria (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Particle Verbs
I notice that the use of "to" as a particle in sense 3 is distinguished here from its use as an adverb in senses 1 and 2. But I wonder, is this really a difference in kind, or only a difference in degree? The intransitive verbs "lay to", "lie to", "heave to" and "come to"; the (mostly) intransitive verbs "stand to" and "fall to";  and the transitive verbs "push to", "pull to" and "bring to" (in the sense of resuscitate)... these all seem to blend, in varying degrees, the use of "to" as a particle and as an adverb. The transitive group is perhaps closer to the adverbial end of things, and the intransitive group closer to the particulate end, but they all seem to be instances of phrasal verbs and, at the same time, instances of a verb modified by an adverb. Grandmotherfrompeoria (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Step to the beat
Is "step to the beat" the same meaning as "up to standard"? Or is up to standard reaching the point of standard? Maybe we should have a collocation thing with prepositions.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October–November 2018
Preposition sense 3:


 * The log was heavy to lift.
 * I chose to change my mind.
 * I chose to change my mind.

"to" is not a preposition in either of these usage examples. I'm listing it here before I delete the whole sense just in case someone can see a prepositional use that the definition might be intended to refer to. Mihia (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, since no one can explain what this is supposed to be referring to, I have deleted it. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In the interests of clarity, can you move the "log " usex to whichever sense of to does cover it? - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was the sense "A particle used for marking the following verb as an infinitive", and that there were already enough examples for that sense. Do you think there is something special or distinct about the "log" example? Mihia (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

to a stop/halt
What meaning is used in The car screeched to a stop ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * #3 Used to indicate result of action. Equinox ◑ 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Use in Ranges
Is there a distinct definition for the use of to when referring to ranges? For example:
 * He will be leaving the country within the next two to three weeks.
 * ''The race horse suddenly overtook the crowd, jumping from eighth to second place.

In Esperanto, I believe the word ĝis ("up to, until") would be used rather than al ("to") in these cases. -- Spade6179 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed ... "ĝis" is the EO preposition for ranges (x "ĝis" y) or ("de" x "ĝis" y).
 * BTW: "jumping from eighth to second place" is NOT a range. It is a move. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The hall resounded to the cheers of the audience
resound: to be filled with a long reverberating sound The hall resounded to the cheers of the audience. Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 What meaning of TO is used in the example? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

kept to himself /kEp?m.sElf/
What phonological process produces the pronunciation (roughly kept to himself /kEp?m.sElf/) that's heard in this clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZPkiC94FEo --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Adverb: toward 1) a point, person, place, or thing, implied or understood. 2) a matter, action, or work
Adverb: toward 1) a point, person, place, or thing, implied or understood. 2) a matter, action, or work: We turned to with a will. However I do not really know what the first meaning refers to --Backinstadiums (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2020–January 2021
RFV sense:


 * I have to do laundry today.
 * I have to do laundry today.

Is "have to" a "phrasal verb"? Are there other instances of "to" as a "particle" (i.e. not preposition) forming "phrasal verbs"? The only one I can think of right now is "push to" (or related phrases such as "pull to"), and this is actually treated under "Adverb" (which I wouldn't disagree with, and I think is consistent with our treatment in other places). Or in fact is this definition supposed to be referring to catenative verbs, in which case is this not just "to" in sense 1, "A particle used for marking the following verb as an infinitive"? Or any other ideas about what this sense is referring to, because I don't really get it. Mihia (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We had a brief discussion a few months ago in one of the forums. I analyze the normal construct as have with an infinitive.  But you can also ask "do I have to?" without a following verb.  I consider have to without an object a back formation from have with an infinitive.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Do I have to?" has ellipsis of the implied verb, which is possible with any construction using the to-infinitive: "Do you want to?" "Did he persuade you to?" "She convinced me to." —Mahāgaja · talk 17:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Questionable translations
There is considerable variation and confusion regarding how to translate "to" (particle, 1: infinitive-marker, as in "to be"). Languages like French and Latin show the suffixes used for infinitives in those languages, while Swedish and Norwegian show the infinitive-marker but not the suffix, and Icelandic and Faroese show both; still other languages state in italics that there is no translation but that infinitives end with a particular suffix. It is important to note that not all English infinitives have "to". Bare infinitives don't. And the Germanic languages have an analogous distinction to English between full infinitives (to be, zu sein, att vara) and bare infinitives. But most of them use bare infinitives more, and to-infinitives less, than English does. Nevertheless it may be said that, if it is valid to provide translations for this sense of "to" at all, then German "zu", Swedish "att", Norwegian "åt" etc are the analogues of English "to"... whereas to list the suffixes that are used for infinitives in these or other languages is questionable. 78.78.187.87 08:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusing usage note
There is a confusing usage note for English: "In northern dialects, where it is rare but still in common use, it is often used in combination with *with*". This raises a few questions: (1) northern UK or northern US? (2) "rare but still in common use" - sounds like a contradiction. (3) Combination with "with" - what does it mean? "... to with ..."? "... with to ..."? Richard~enwiktionary (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)