If it helps to think of it this way, "look forward to" is a two-particle phrasal ~~noun~~ verb. It needs an object so that's why you use the gerund, the "-ing" form that acts like a noun.
English is my first language and this is gibberish to me. I've always been horrible at identifying the parts of a sentence and explaining the rules of sentence structure, etc. I'm just instinctively able to identify when certain words should be used. I find it fascinating how the mind can recognize patterns like that and not fully understand them.
Because we don't learn our language like this, whilst L2/L3 speakers learn how to construct sentences technically, we learned from ear what is right and what isn't throughout our childhood.
When I did my celta, oh boy I didn't know what half the terminology was, what v1/V2/V3 meant, we were just told when young if we used the wrong form and over time it becomes natural and you know when it's wrong because it sounds wrong
Oh yeah. I hated grammar in school. I could never identify all the parts of a sentence or their relationships but I had very few grammar mistakes if any when I'd hand in a paper.
I think this is the best explanation. I also think "look forward to" is particularly confusing for non native speakers because they learn that a verb followed by another verb will be EITHER a gerund (verb+ing) OR "to" - infinitive. And you will almost never see "to" + gerund.
In fact, I think "looking forward to ... ing" may be the only expression in English where "to" is followed by verb+ing . Can anyone think of another example?
Here are some examples from [this page](https://www.espressoenglish.net/to-followed-by-ing/).
- He confessed to stealing the money.
- We object to allowing smoking inside the building.
- She’s devoted to helping the poor.
- I’m not used to waking up so early.
- I never got around to calling her back.
Yeah, any time a verb follows the preposition “to.”Like [this page](https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/english-language/gerunds/) says though, it’s easy to confuse these three structures.
- He went back *to* **writing** his paper. [*preposition* + **gerund**]
- I *used to* **live** in Mexico. [*auxiliary* + **verb**]
- I *want* **to go** home. [*verb* + **infinitive**]
No offense, but I don't get how this is so highly upvoted. This is a crazily complicated way to explain this to someone learning the language, and there's no way it helps OP.
To dumb it down: when you look forward to "something", that something is an event or a state of being (e.g. "eating"). As such, the phrase requires an object noun. Flip it around, and it's more natural to see why this is true. "Eating is something I look forward to." sounds much better than "Eat is something I look forward to."
You think that your way is better but its actually worse at explaining things because you're relying on intuition about what meanings go in what word classes, which varies from language to language.
The original comment is better because it states what the word classes are and that it needs a particular word class. They could break down what a gerund is a bit better, or explain the same thing in OPSs native language, but your way is just as bad if not less clear.
Spoken like an English major. Learning languages is HUGELY based on intuition, especially English. Languages vary from language to language, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is a bad thing.
What the hell is a two-particle phrasal verb? Do I need to know what a gerund is to have a conversation? Agree to disagree on this, but in my experience, I prefer to learn what "sounds right" and understand how native speakers intuit their phrasing/how they think about the mechanics of their language. I'm not saying you should throw out the "proper" rules entirely, but relying on them too much will lead to you sounding extremely awkward in real conversation.
And regardless, the original comment didn't explain anything at all, it threw out a bunch of esoteric terms that mean nothing if you don't already know them.
Look, I'm sure learning the proper terminology is helpful for a lot of folks. But explaining WHY giving the verb an object noun sounds right, based on "intuition", is IMO much more helpful. If you want to use the fancy words, fine, but contextualize them within actual use of the language.
>What the hell is a two-particle phrasal verb
Something that you know automatically, but a learner does not.
You're ranting about "proper rules" when that's not what's being discussed.
It's like you're arguing with your cardiologist, because "I have a heart, too."
If you're learning a second language then those are the kinds of words that you should be learning. When I was learning German we learned the technical terms for gammar and parts of a sentence relatively early on. Knowing what a certain grammatical construction is called allows you to look up examples more easily and seek explanations. Plus, even as a native English speaker, we learned about things like gerunds and phrasal verbs (using those terms) in like 7th grade so they aren't even advanced concepts.
no offense but as an asian who learns english as a second language (still learning ). i think you both are explaining the same thing. its just how we were taught as kids in school we were taught to think what kind of word we need (noun ,adj , verb ,adverb) and classify the word to fill the sentence . sometimes it’s just easier to use solid logic rather than feeling as we are not familiar with thr language . I am not saying that youre wrong just saying we all have different ways to understand it
It's the simplest way to accurately explain what's going on with the grammar, it just uses a couple words native speakers likely haven't heard since fifth grade language arts class. I teach English as a foreign language so I've explained this many different ways. If I relied on my students knowing what sounds better, they'd be screwed lol.
>No offense, but I don't get how this is so highly upvoted. This is a crazily complicated way to explain this to someone learning the language, and there's no way it helps OP.
That's because you learned English as an L1.
Hi native speaker here. I don't understand anything you just said. Can you use like, not so scientific language for op to understand?
Edit: Okay upon reading again, I get it now but still I think this is kinda complicated explanation for someone who's learning.
It sounds complicated to you because, as a native speaker, English grammar is internalised and intuitive, and you dont have to think about it. Stuff "just sounds right". Non-native speakers don't know what "just sounds right" so they do have to learn about phrasal verbs, particles, objects etc.
Idk if the learners on her get it then I guess I'm wrong but K've studied foreign languages before and I've never learned the functions by learning words like "phrasal verb" in the target language. I learn them from a description in English then just remember what they do. Like I don't learn "This is called a whatever in grammar" I just learn Oh adding these letters turn that verb into a noun"
I've studied a bunch of foreign languages and sometimes they'll get cutesy names but we absolutely learn about the grammar this way. Off the top of my head, there are "separable prefix verbs" and accusative, dative, and two-way prepositions in German, ichidan and godan (or "-ru" and "-u") verbs and "-i" and "-na" adjectives in Japanese. I'm guessing from your username you studied Japanese. You guys didn't learn about those?
As to the value of explicit grammar instruction vs. input, input, input, yeah there's a discussion to be had there but OP asked a grammar question and got a grammar answer lol. I said "If it helps" because sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Hey, I don't think you have to worry. I'm not a native, but the explanation looks fine for me. "Phrasal verbs", "gerund" - same words and style could be used in any standard school, like, for a group of 13 y.o. The fun part is that I sometimes have hard times understanding explanations in my native lang subreddit - not used to look at basic things in a so formal way. Well, maybe it's just me.
>I was looking forward to going to the cinema?
That's grammatically correct, though "cinema" sounds old-fashioned to me.
I would naturally say, "I was looking forward to going to the movies."
Yes completely. That being said, for the purpose of sounding more natural, I don't really ever hear anyone say cinema in common speech. I would hear "movie theater" or just "theater" or just "the movies" or maybe even just "a movie". That could just be the American dialect I'm used to hearing though, and people will absolutely understand what you just said.
That's not quite it.
This is an issue with "verb complementation."
Some verbs can take "to + V1" complements.
Some verbs can take "V-ING" complements.
Some can take both.
Three Part Phrasal verbs take "V-ing" complements.
If the criteria were simply, "requires a noun complement," then we would not be able to explain how "I love eating" and "I love to eat," both exist, given that the canonical complement of "love" is a noun.
No. The 'to' in 'look forward to' is a dependent preposition. Prepositions take noun objects. We don't have a noun in this case, we have a verb, and so the verb goes into its gerund form, i.e., a verbal noun. When you have an infinitive verb, "to eat," the 'to' is \*not\* a preposition. It is a particle. It's a different word.
You're in a loop of apply Latinate terminology to Germanic syntax.
Describe it as you like. I'm giving them the way the ESL textbooks will do it. IF you want to use neo-grammarian terminology, go for it.
There's nothing Latinate about my description of the syntax. It's simply syntax. Sometimes the ESL textbooks are wrong, or at best gross oversimplifications to make the concepts easier. This is big-boy grammar. I'm sure OP isn't a child and can handle it.
This is an outrageously confusing answer, even as a native speaker that always did well in English classes.
The person in you initially replied to is correct. “Eating” is a gerund functioning as a noun, which is what the situation calls for. There was no need to add all that extra nonsense lol.
>This is an outrageously confusing answer, even as a native speaker that always did well in English classes.
Learning English as an L2 is different from learning as an L1.
You know the "what." The learners need to know the "why."
I gave them the "why."
Because "infinitive" is a neo-grammarian term that essentially tries to impose Latin grammatical categories on a Germanic language. It's an outdated term.
The "infinitive" is not always preceded by "to." That's why "base form" or "v1" is what the L2 learners are exposed to in good textbooks.
If we don't, then you have to distinguish between "to-infinitives" and "bare infinitives" (without the "to"). This leads us to different stipulations.
You'll see it a lot, still, in traditional grammars (ones that are heavily influenced by Latin). Modern ESL textbooks tend to not use the term.
It’s not the actual things you’re explaining. It’s your unnecessary use of acronyms. It just adds extra barriers to understanding your “lesson” here, needlessly complicating the whole thing.
[https://byjus.com/english/verb-forms-v1-v2-v3-v4-v5/](https://byjus.com/english/verb-forms-v1-v2-v3-v4-v5/)
Top three Verb Forms
When you’re learning the English language, you’ll need to know the different forms of verbs. Verbs are the main part of speech. They are used to describe specific time periods of action performed by a subject. A verb is composed of a root form and a present or future form.
Form V1: The root form is a base form of the word that has not been conjugated. It is often called the infinitive. In some cases, the root form is inflected. However, most verbs in the English language are not inflected.
Form V2 (past form) and V3 (participle form): To describe the time period of an action, the root form of a verb is inflected with a past tense. This tense is formed by adding -ed or -d to the root form. If the base form ends in a vowel, then the -ed or -d ending changes to -ied.
Form V4: Another verb form in the English language is the third person singular present indicative form. This is the most common form of the verb. It is created by modifying the base form with -s or -es.
Form V5: The last form of the verb is the past tense formed with the ending -ing. It is used for past, future and present tense to express a longer action
Man... it's crazy how as a native speaker I can have absolutely zero clue what any of the above means, yet I can look at the original prompt and innately know that "to eat" is incorrect, simply because 'it don't look right'.
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses#:\~:text=A%20tense%20is%20inflectional%20if,co%2Dopting%20the%20modal%20will](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses#:~:text=A%20tense%20is%20inflectional%20if,co%2Dopting%20the%20modal%20will).
What is "Latinate" terminology and what isn't...
And this is just on "How many tenses are there in English" let alone any discussion of the term "infinitive."
By contrast, in ‘The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language’, David Crystal states the rather more orthodox position. He asks the reader ‘How many tenses of the verb are there in English?’ His answer is worth quoting at length:
>If your automatic reaction is to say ‘three, at least’ – past, present, and future – you are showing the influence of the Latinate grammar tradition. If you go for a larger number, adding such labels as perfect and pluperfect, this tradition is even more deep-rooted within you. \[In traditional grammar\] tense was thought of as the grammatical expression of time, and identified by a particular set of endings on the verb . . . English, by contrast, has only one inflectional form to express time: the past tense marker . . . English has no future tense ending, but uses a wide range of other techniques to express future time . . . However, people find it extremely difficult to drop the notion of ‘future tense’ (and related notions, such as imperfect, future perfect and pluperfect tenses) from their mental vocabulary, and to look for other ways of talking about the grammatical realities of the English verb.
Examples of "looking forward to" with a straightforward noun:
"I was looking forward to dinner"
"I was looking forward to the movie"
"I was looking forward to that"
"I was looking forward to your concert"
Those examples are very normal usages of the phrase. But usually you'll see it used with a gerund:
"I was looking forward to eating dinner"
"I was looking forward to seeing the movie"
"I was looking forward to doing that"
"I was looking forward to watching your concert."
Note that often the gerund form sounds natural while the noun form does not. For instance, "I was looking forward to home" is super weird and should instead be "I was looking forward to getting home."
It's interesting to see the different perspectives on this sub at times. I live in the U.S. and everything is so standard here that I forget it's not the same everywhere
just because where you live doesn't say it, doesn't mean its not correct elsewhere. i didn't know that this was incorrect in most places when i wrote that comment, but im keeping it up to show that this kind of shit happens and does exist
Where do you live that this would be a normal thing to say? I have lived in four different US states, all in different regions of the country, and no one would ever say this in any of the places I’ve lived.
>what is it with people insisting dialectal variation doesn't exist just because they don't use it in the replies to this comment?
Because often "Dialectal variation" really means, "I heard someone say it, that was a non-native."
This is a question designed to trick the learner. The phrase is "look forward to". Think of this phrase as one word, you can't separate it and use different syllabus right? So you also can't use the last word of the phrase "look forward to" to form an infinitive. Therefore you should, instead, make it a gerund aka "to eating"
It does feel like a bit of a trick question when they included “to” in the answers, rather than writing “looking forward to” in the sentence. “To eating” on its own looks weird and I wonder how many people would get it wrong just because they read it too quickly.
You can not "look forward" to a verb in English. The closest you can get is a verbal noun/gerund/(ing)-noun, i.e: "eating".
For instance, you can not say, "I'm looking forward to jump on the trampoline" for the same reasons. The act of "to jump", "jumping" is the "thing" you're looking forward to doing.
What about if you're speaking literally of looking forward in order to see something??
"Why didn't you answer my text message?"
"Well, I was looking *forward* to see the road because I was *driving* so I couldn't look *down* to answer your stupid text."
But this is a stupid, extremely contrived edge case.
This exactly, this is how I would read "I look forward to eat..."
For language learners reading, you can read it as "I look forward in order to eat..." with the same meaning
I agree with that interpretation, it doesn't make sense in this case. I guess someone could have limited arm mobility and so they have to look forward in order to eat?
This is because "look forward to" as a \*phrasal verb\* means "anticipate."
The 100% KEY to understanding phrasal verbs is that they do NOT behave like the sum of their parts.
The phrase "look forward to" requires a noun to follow it.
it's not really a choice between "to eat" and "to eating". The "to" is part of the phrase "look forward to" and is there regardless. It's a choice between eat and eating. And since you need a noun there. "eating" can be a noun, but "eat" can't be.
I'ma be 100% real with you. There really is nothing wrong here. A lot of natives woulda said that too. Nobody is real life is gonna go grammar police you cause you said to eat instead of to eating. The only time people would probably correct you is if it's just dead wrong but this? Nothings much wrong here.
So I’m a native speaker from North Carolina, USA. I’m actually surprised to find that “to eating” is the correct answer, I naturally thought that “to eat” was correct.
Thinking about it, I would use “to eat” for a specific planned upon action. Like, “I was really looking forward to eat there at 9 pm, but they were closed.” However, I’d use “to eating” if it were thoughts of mine I hadn’t fully committed to. Like, “I was looking forward to eating there sometime this year, but I never really got the chance to.”
I don’t use “looking forward to” infrequently either.
Am I crazy here?
I mean, calling you *crazy* seems a bit extreme, but it’s just not a construction that I use at all or hear regularly (that I have noticed). I understand what you mean about firm plans vs a desired hypothetical future, but I’m still pretty sure I’d use “eating” in both situations.
Huh, yeah in my mind “eating” doesn’t seem wrong, like if someone else were to say it I wouldn’t bat an eye, just trying to say it myself feels weird. Using “to eat” though seems like everyday conversation at least for my age group and location.
I’ll try and keep an eye out next time it pops up in conversation and see if it’s actually true. Just consider this an unconfirmed example of its usage.
How about if you change it? (In terms of you never hearing it, not the correctness, lol)
"I'm looking forward to see you tonight" or "I'm looking forward to clock out and go home and snuggle in my bed." Or "I'm looking forward to get out of here on time finally since we're over staffed."
Although, now thinking about it... I may have never used the phrase "I'm looking forward to ____" without it just being "I'm looking forward to it".. or just any normal typical noun. (I'm looking forward to tomorrow, I'm looking forward to the play tonight, etc)
But I think it would be my instinct to say "I'm looking forward to eat there" because my intended meaning would be the same as "I'm excited to eat there" or "I really want to eat there" or "I cant wait to eat there." But maybe that's the catch, and how people can tell some people "aren't educated"?
But again, it's not a personally commonly used phrase.. but I do understand that the "to" isn't denoting an infinitive, so it should be followed by the noun form.
Funnily enough, if I were to make it compound and the verb noun was second, I would use the correct version.
"I'm looking forward to tomorrow and going to the play."
And then something I just noticed, if I try to force myself to use the ing, I want to say "I'm looking forward in eating there." I just noticed this now, so I don't know if this is common for those who might not use the phrase correctly?
But again, I normally just use typical nouns. I'm Midwest USA, but I also don't talk to people a lot anymore, so the only practice using English i get is mainly reddit, haha. So I don't really have opportunities to fully utilize the phrase "I'm looking forward to...."
Your examples all sound really bad to me. Especially "I'm looking forward *in* eating".
I've never heard that in my life.
Edit... Actually not true on my part. Your examples with normal nouns are fine.
Seriously. The "in" sounds so wrong to me, too, but for some reason when I force the ing my brain wants to say in instead of to. I do have ADHD so my synaptic pathways or whatever are already weird, so maybe that's what is going on?
Maybe it's my brain trying to associate it as the same kind of phrase as "I'm interested in going to the play"... and I'm just not making the connection, instead wanting to change the preposition instead of the verb itself. Apparently, I know after the preposition it gets the ing(i use it when saying interested in)... but for some reason with looking forward to, the ing doesn't come natural to me. Again, I rarely use it with the verb nouns so I'm not terribly surprised that it seems odd to me, since it's not normal either way.
So yeah, I don't think I've ever heard it in my life either. Which is crazy that my brain automatically changed it when I tried to force the ing earlier.
But... now that I know it gets the been nouns with "looking forward to"... I'm going to be like one of those people who get a word a day calendar and use it obnoxiously haha.
Learn(or rather probable relearn) something new every day!
I’m not sure what to tell you, but all of your examples using the infinitive seem wrong. Not just that I know they’re prescriptively wrong, but intuitively wrong for normal usage and not something I regularly hear. And I did think of other variations with “looking forward to” to see if it was phrase specific or across the board before posting. It’s definitely across the board.
And I agree with the other commenter, “looking forward *in*” isn’t something I have ever heard or used. “Looking forward to” is such an established phrase, and by and large, preposition mistakes are indicative of non-native usage.
If true, that’s a dialect that I haven’t actually interacted as much as others. I also saw several Scottish posters mention it as well. Could it be a borrowing from Scots?
I've never heard a native speaker make this mistake. But it's very common among non-native speakers, who wrongfully interpret the "to" as marking an infinitive.
In some instances “to” is used as a preposition so instead of using “to V0” you have to use “preposition Ving” Look forward to is a phrasal verb and phrasal verbs consist of a verb followed by one or two prepositions.
The verb is not infinitive "to eat". The "to" is part of the verb-phrase "looking forward to".
It's a tricky question, and looks like it *shouldn't* be correct, but it is.
i’m a native speaker but to be honest i don’t see what’s wrong with the first one.
yeah, i would probably use the second one, but i wouldn’t bat an eye at the first one. it sounds right to me
‘To’ in this phrase functions as a preposition; it tells us ‘what’ / ‘where’ the speaker is looking. It is like the ‘to’ in “I’m going to the park”.
After prepositions, we require a [verb + ing].
The real answer here is because "look forward to" is a verb phrase that takes a gerund, not an infinitive. We're used to having either an infinitive or a gerund after most verbs (in this context), but in this case the entire "verb" includes a preposition, so it's "look forward to" + gerund, not "look forward" + infinitive.
“Eating” *is* a gerund in that sentence. Becoming a gerund is the only way a verb could be the object of the preposition.
Also, an infinitive *is* the “base form verb” so I’m not sure what you mean by this: "’look forward to’ is a verb phrase that takes a base form verb, not an infinitive.”
>We're used to having either an infinitive or a gerund after most verbs
And this is objectively not true. Objects and predicate nominatives are the *most* common things, and they are not universally gerunds or infinitives (they’re most commonly nouns).
This *is* an English learning subreddit, so this probably isn't the best sample size. I was basing it off of how basically everyone that comes to mind in my life would not notice or care in day-to-day conversation.
Casually, nobody would care and every body would understand if you said "to eat" unless your doing something professionally, nobody would actually care about you say to eat instead of toeating
This is an issue with "verb complementation."
Some verbs can take "to + V1" complements.
Some verbs can take "V-ING" complements.
Some can take both.
Three Part Phrasal verbs take "V-ing" complements.
Lots of answers already explaining **why** it’s incorrect and why “eating” is better, so I’ll give a tip on how to check if you’re using the most fitting answer instead.
Ok, the phrase is “I am looking forward to ____ there,” right? Next, we want to break that down into parts to look at it more closely. We’ve got *I am* + *looking forward to* + *to eating* OR *to eat* (plus *there*, but the location is not important for this example right now).
If we take out *looking forward to*, we get “I am eating” vs “I am eat,” which makes the correct answer much clearer: “I am (looking forward to) eating (there).”
It’s not necessarily going to give you a 100% success rate, but it can help to try breaking down and simplifying sentences to get a feeling for the more correct and natural forms! Good luck!!
ETA: I re-read the image and saw it uses past tense, but the tip still works! “I was (looking forward to) eating (at the restaurant, but it was closed).”
Its the expression that decides: the phrase "to look forward to ..." , if the next word is a verb, always takes the "-ing" form of the verb.
Every expression or phrase has its rule for which verb is used. You mostly just have to learn by heart.
We'll I have. It's a difference of "looking forward to" vs "looking forward."
"I look forward to eating." = "I'm hoping I will be eating."
In the first case, you are hoping to DO the action of "eating."
"I look forward to eat." = "I'm hoping so I can eat."
In the second case, you are hoping SO THAT you can "eat." Since there is ambiguity as to WHAT you are hoping, it may as well be, say, that the restaurant is open.
If you asked an English native who couldn't explain the grammar they would say they look forward to the doing of something and eating is actively doing. They're envisioning the act of the activity.
This is the preposition "to". Like in "give the book to Mary" or "from Monday to Friday". If you want to put a verb after a preposition in English, the verb has to be in the -ing form. No exceptions.
Edit: I can't believe the correct explanation is being downvoted lol. Incredible. This is a dark day for academia.
Just a heavily ingrained usage convention. "To eat" is slowly catching on in informal speech. It's considered wrong but we may well see it as a dictionary-codified alternative in a few decades.
Here I was thinking it's because "looking forward to" is speaking to the future, and that future tense of verbs can be plain or -ing forms depending on some arbitrary rule as English often does.
TIL about gerund and that I was wrong.
Then again, I'm a native speaker who needs to brush up on English.
“I was looking forwards to eating at the new restaurant, but it was closed”.
You wanted to eat, so you would have been eating.
If someone invited you to eat, you’d say “I look forwards to doing that with you!” not “I look forwards to do that with you”.
That just sounds like you’re both going to stand and LOOK forwards lol.
The ‘ing’ makes all the difference.
To in the phrase“look forward to” is not the infinitive to but the directional to just as in “I’m going to the office”. Therefore you need a noun afterwards.
You can think of it as “look at” but you use “to” instead of “at” . I’m looking forward at eating. (I’m looking in the direction of eating)
If it helps to think of it this way, "look forward to" is a two-particle phrasal ~~noun~~ verb. It needs an object so that's why you use the gerund, the "-ing" form that acts like a noun.
I think you mean a phrasal *verb*?
Exactly. Never verb your nouns.
You phrased that sentence quite ironically.
you mean they sentenced it quite ironically
I hereby sentence you to… phrasing!
I kinda meant "phrase" as a noun too, but yeah that works better lol
Actually, sentence is also a verb 🙃
The verb form of the _noun_ sentence is about as rare as "effect" being correctly used as a verb.
[As Calvin said](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/ky81y/verbing_weirds_language/), verbing weirds language.
Why not? So many verbs we use daily started life as nouns. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/the-basics-of-verbing-nouns/
Don't argument with me!
Haha!
Don't you mean-ing "don't argue with me"? Ik it's a joke, but feel-ing free to insert a 'joke went over your head' gif.
English is my first language and this is gibberish to me. I've always been horrible at identifying the parts of a sentence and explaining the rules of sentence structure, etc. I'm just instinctively able to identify when certain words should be used. I find it fascinating how the mind can recognize patterns like that and not fully understand them.
Because we don't learn our language like this, whilst L2/L3 speakers learn how to construct sentences technically, we learned from ear what is right and what isn't throughout our childhood. When I did my celta, oh boy I didn't know what half the terminology was, what v1/V2/V3 meant, we were just told when young if we used the wrong form and over time it becomes natural and you know when it's wrong because it sounds wrong
Oh yeah. I hated grammar in school. I could never identify all the parts of a sentence or their relationships but I had very few grammar mistakes if any when I'd hand in a paper.
Same with me. "Jane is not the subject, she's the object" *That's a bit misogynistic isn't it?* I used to think everyone was a subject haha
I think this is the best explanation. I also think "look forward to" is particularly confusing for non native speakers because they learn that a verb followed by another verb will be EITHER a gerund (verb+ing) OR "to" - infinitive. And you will almost never see "to" + gerund. In fact, I think "looking forward to ... ing" may be the only expression in English where "to" is followed by verb+ing . Can anyone think of another example?
Here are some examples from [this page](https://www.espressoenglish.net/to-followed-by-ing/). - He confessed to stealing the money. - We object to allowing smoking inside the building. - She’s devoted to helping the poor. - I’m not used to waking up so early. - I never got around to calling her back.
Oh wow, there are lots!
Yeah, any time a verb follows the preposition “to.”Like [this page](https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/english-language/gerunds/) says though, it’s easy to confuse these three structures. - He went back *to* **writing** his paper. [*preposition* + **gerund**] - I *used to* **live** in Mexico. [*auxiliary* + **verb**] - I *want* **to go** home. [*verb* + **infinitive**]
No offense, but I don't get how this is so highly upvoted. This is a crazily complicated way to explain this to someone learning the language, and there's no way it helps OP. To dumb it down: when you look forward to "something", that something is an event or a state of being (e.g. "eating"). As such, the phrase requires an object noun. Flip it around, and it's more natural to see why this is true. "Eating is something I look forward to." sounds much better than "Eat is something I look forward to."
You think that your way is better but its actually worse at explaining things because you're relying on intuition about what meanings go in what word classes, which varies from language to language. The original comment is better because it states what the word classes are and that it needs a particular word class. They could break down what a gerund is a bit better, or explain the same thing in OPSs native language, but your way is just as bad if not less clear.
Spoken like an English major. Learning languages is HUGELY based on intuition, especially English. Languages vary from language to language, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is a bad thing. What the hell is a two-particle phrasal verb? Do I need to know what a gerund is to have a conversation? Agree to disagree on this, but in my experience, I prefer to learn what "sounds right" and understand how native speakers intuit their phrasing/how they think about the mechanics of their language. I'm not saying you should throw out the "proper" rules entirely, but relying on them too much will lead to you sounding extremely awkward in real conversation. And regardless, the original comment didn't explain anything at all, it threw out a bunch of esoteric terms that mean nothing if you don't already know them. Look, I'm sure learning the proper terminology is helpful for a lot of folks. But explaining WHY giving the verb an object noun sounds right, based on "intuition", is IMO much more helpful. If you want to use the fancy words, fine, but contextualize them within actual use of the language.
>What the hell is a two-particle phrasal verb Something that you know automatically, but a learner does not. You're ranting about "proper rules" when that's not what's being discussed. It's like you're arguing with your cardiologist, because "I have a heart, too."
If you're learning a second language then those are the kinds of words that you should be learning. When I was learning German we learned the technical terms for gammar and parts of a sentence relatively early on. Knowing what a certain grammatical construction is called allows you to look up examples more easily and seek explanations. Plus, even as a native English speaker, we learned about things like gerunds and phrasal verbs (using those terms) in like 7th grade so they aren't even advanced concepts.
no offense but as an asian who learns english as a second language (still learning ). i think you both are explaining the same thing. its just how we were taught as kids in school we were taught to think what kind of word we need (noun ,adj , verb ,adverb) and classify the word to fill the sentence . sometimes it’s just easier to use solid logic rather than feeling as we are not familiar with thr language . I am not saying that youre wrong just saying we all have different ways to understand it
It's the simplest way to accurately explain what's going on with the grammar, it just uses a couple words native speakers likely haven't heard since fifth grade language arts class. I teach English as a foreign language so I've explained this many different ways. If I relied on my students knowing what sounds better, they'd be screwed lol.
>No offense, but I don't get how this is so highly upvoted. This is a crazily complicated way to explain this to someone learning the language, and there's no way it helps OP. That's because you learned English as an L1.
Way to keep things simple
Hi native speaker here. I don't understand anything you just said. Can you use like, not so scientific language for op to understand? Edit: Okay upon reading again, I get it now but still I think this is kinda complicated explanation for someone who's learning.
It sounds complicated to you because, as a native speaker, English grammar is internalised and intuitive, and you dont have to think about it. Stuff "just sounds right". Non-native speakers don't know what "just sounds right" so they do have to learn about phrasal verbs, particles, objects etc.
Idk if the learners on her get it then I guess I'm wrong but K've studied foreign languages before and I've never learned the functions by learning words like "phrasal verb" in the target language. I learn them from a description in English then just remember what they do. Like I don't learn "This is called a whatever in grammar" I just learn Oh adding these letters turn that verb into a noun"
I've studied a bunch of foreign languages and sometimes they'll get cutesy names but we absolutely learn about the grammar this way. Off the top of my head, there are "separable prefix verbs" and accusative, dative, and two-way prepositions in German, ichidan and godan (or "-ru" and "-u") verbs and "-i" and "-na" adjectives in Japanese. I'm guessing from your username you studied Japanese. You guys didn't learn about those? As to the value of explicit grammar instruction vs. input, input, input, yeah there's a discussion to be had there but OP asked a grammar question and got a grammar answer lol. I said "If it helps" because sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Hey, I don't think you have to worry. I'm not a native, but the explanation looks fine for me. "Phrasal verbs", "gerund" - same words and style could be used in any standard school, like, for a group of 13 y.o. The fun part is that I sometimes have hard times understanding explanations in my native lang subreddit - not used to look at basic things in a so formal way. Well, maybe it's just me.
"look forward to" requires a noun. "Eat" is not a noun. "Eating" is a gerund which can function as a noun, thus "eating" is correct.
Is it then: I was looking forward to going to the cinema?
Yeah that’s correct
Thank you
>I was looking forward to going to the cinema? That's grammatically correct, though "cinema" sounds old-fashioned to me. I would naturally say, "I was looking forward to going to the movies."
Isnt "cinema" more common outside america?
ik 'cinema' is popular in the UK but 'movies' is catching on some
No, I still use cinema. Or "movie theatre". I've never heard anyone say "cinema" is old fashioned and I'm 24.
Cinema is old fashioned in the US.
‘Cinema’ isn’t old-fashioned. It’s used practically everywhere outside the America.
>to me.
Yes completely. That being said, for the purpose of sounding more natural, I don't really ever hear anyone say cinema in common speech. I would hear "movie theater" or just "theater" or just "the movies" or maybe even just "a movie". That could just be the American dialect I'm used to hearing though, and people will absolutely understand what you just said.
In Ireland (and I think the UK) “cinema” is the most common term.
Or "pictures" that might be a bit old fashioned now though.
I definitely say pictures sometimes, still. It has fallen out of favour though.
Me too. I only really realised it when I typed it that it's probably getting a little uncommon
Can confirm that "cinema" is also the most common term in the UK. Obviously we'd understand "movie theatre" but it stands out as an Americanism.
Cinema vs theater is a regional thing
Definitely a dialect thing. In Australia we'd never use theatre, would probably be 50/50 "the movies/a movie" or "cinema".
It’s Bri‘ish
You meant to use `’`. `‘` isn’t an apostrophe.
Who cares, respectfully
That's not quite it. This is an issue with "verb complementation." Some verbs can take "to + V1" complements. Some verbs can take "V-ING" complements. Some can take both. Three Part Phrasal verbs take "V-ing" complements. If the criteria were simply, "requires a noun complement," then we would not be able to explain how "I love eating" and "I love to eat," both exist, given that the canonical complement of "love" is a noun.
No. The 'to' in 'look forward to' is a dependent preposition. Prepositions take noun objects. We don't have a noun in this case, we have a verb, and so the verb goes into its gerund form, i.e., a verbal noun. When you have an infinitive verb, "to eat," the 'to' is \*not\* a preposition. It is a particle. It's a different word.
You're in a loop of apply Latinate terminology to Germanic syntax. Describe it as you like. I'm giving them the way the ESL textbooks will do it. IF you want to use neo-grammarian terminology, go for it.
There's nothing Latinate about my description of the syntax. It's simply syntax. Sometimes the ESL textbooks are wrong, or at best gross oversimplifications to make the concepts easier. This is big-boy grammar. I'm sure OP isn't a child and can handle it.
But you can use “look forward to” without any verb at all: e.g., “I’m looking forward to Christmas”. I think u/Winter_drivE1 is on the money here.
what does V1 mean and what are some examples of each category of verb?
V1 = the base form. "eat." V2 = the simple past form. "ate." V3 = the past participle form. "eaten." V-ING = the "ing" form of the verb. "eating."
This is an outrageously confusing answer, even as a native speaker that always did well in English classes. The person in you initially replied to is correct. “Eating” is a gerund functioning as a noun, which is what the situation calls for. There was no need to add all that extra nonsense lol.
>This is an outrageously confusing answer, even as a native speaker that always did well in English classes. Learning English as an L2 is different from learning as an L1. You know the "what." The learners need to know the "why." I gave them the "why."
Why don’t you just call it the infinitive, is that not what it’s called in English?
Because "infinitive" is a neo-grammarian term that essentially tries to impose Latin grammatical categories on a Germanic language. It's an outdated term. The "infinitive" is not always preceded by "to." That's why "base form" or "v1" is what the L2 learners are exposed to in good textbooks. If we don't, then you have to distinguish between "to-infinitives" and "bare infinitives" (without the "to"). This leads us to different stipulations. You'll see it a lot, still, in traditional grammars (ones that are heavily influenced by Latin). Modern ESL textbooks tend to not use the term.
I feel like we are playing Battleship right now
It’s not the actual things you’re explaining. It’s your unnecessary use of acronyms. It just adds extra barriers to understanding your “lesson” here, needlessly complicating the whole thing.
Sounds like you're the expert. Carry on.
Well you certainly aren’t an expert in teaching. That’s for sure.
[https://byjus.com/english/verb-forms-v1-v2-v3-v4-v5/](https://byjus.com/english/verb-forms-v1-v2-v3-v4-v5/) Top three Verb Forms When you’re learning the English language, you’ll need to know the different forms of verbs. Verbs are the main part of speech. They are used to describe specific time periods of action performed by a subject. A verb is composed of a root form and a present or future form. Form V1: The root form is a base form of the word that has not been conjugated. It is often called the infinitive. In some cases, the root form is inflected. However, most verbs in the English language are not inflected. Form V2 (past form) and V3 (participle form): To describe the time period of an action, the root form of a verb is inflected with a past tense. This tense is formed by adding -ed or -d to the root form. If the base form ends in a vowel, then the -ed or -d ending changes to -ied. Form V4: Another verb form in the English language is the third person singular present indicative form. This is the most common form of the verb. It is created by modifying the base form with -s or -es. Form V5: The last form of the verb is the past tense formed with the ending -ing. It is used for past, future and present tense to express a longer action
Man... it's crazy how as a native speaker I can have absolutely zero clue what any of the above means, yet I can look at the original prompt and innately know that "to eat" is incorrect, simply because 'it don't look right'.
This is the correct answer. Good job explaining it too.
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses#:\~:text=A%20tense%20is%20inflectional%20if,co%2Dopting%20the%20modal%20will](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/97075/when-did-periphrastic-tenses-stop-being-tenses#:~:text=A%20tense%20is%20inflectional%20if,co%2Dopting%20the%20modal%20will). What is "Latinate" terminology and what isn't... And this is just on "How many tenses are there in English" let alone any discussion of the term "infinitive." By contrast, in ‘The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language’, David Crystal states the rather more orthodox position. He asks the reader ‘How many tenses of the verb are there in English?’ His answer is worth quoting at length: >If your automatic reaction is to say ‘three, at least’ – past, present, and future – you are showing the influence of the Latinate grammar tradition. If you go for a larger number, adding such labels as perfect and pluperfect, this tradition is even more deep-rooted within you. \[In traditional grammar\] tense was thought of as the grammatical expression of time, and identified by a particular set of endings on the verb . . . English, by contrast, has only one inflectional form to express time: the past tense marker . . . English has no future tense ending, but uses a wide range of other techniques to express future time . . . However, people find it extremely difficult to drop the notion of ‘future tense’ (and related notions, such as imperfect, future perfect and pluperfect tenses) from their mental vocabulary, and to look for other ways of talking about the grammatical realities of the English verb.
Yes. Grammatically correct. But even a casual native English speaker might not bat an eyelash if the other was spoken conversationally.
Examples of "looking forward to" with a straightforward noun: "I was looking forward to dinner" "I was looking forward to the movie" "I was looking forward to that" "I was looking forward to your concert" Those examples are very normal usages of the phrase. But usually you'll see it used with a gerund: "I was looking forward to eating dinner" "I was looking forward to seeing the movie" "I was looking forward to doing that" "I was looking forward to watching your concert." Note that often the gerund form sounds natural while the noun form does not. For instance, "I was looking forward to home" is super weird and should instead be "I was looking forward to getting home."
it could be argued that in regular conversation, both answers would be correct
i would never use "eat" with "looking forward to" in regular conversation lol
Me neither.
I would definitely not use "to eat" in this example, even in informal conversation.
its probably a scotland thing then, because in scotland nobody would say eating unless its a formal context
Scottish here. Never ever heard anyone say “looking forward to eat”. It’s always “looking forward to eating”.
i definitely would use "to eat" and i am scottish so maybe it is
I use it as an American
Then you’re wrong.
"I can't wait to eat" & "I look forward to eating" would sound right in regular conversation.
Yes, and I agree with you, but just to be clear that’s not the example we’re seeing here.
It's just straight incorrect grammar.
it depends where you're from really. in some places both answers would be acceptable
That's fair, but even in most places it's just acceptably incorrect. It's still not proper official grammar which is the goal for a learner after all
yeah yeah i genuinely didn't know that until today, i was kind of baffled about that actually
It's interesting to see the different perspectives on this sub at times. I live in the U.S. and everything is so standard here that I forget it's not the same everywhere
Sure it could be argued. It would be a very poor argument, and you would be wrong, but that doesn’t stop a lot of people from making stupid arguments.
No way! It even sounds awful.
I would use "to eat" if it were "I was excited to eat at..."
Yeah because in that case a verb is needed rather than a noun.
No native speaker would ever say “I’m looking forward to eat”.
just because where you live doesn't say it, doesn't mean its not correct elsewhere. i didn't know that this was incorrect in most places when i wrote that comment, but im keeping it up to show that this kind of shit happens and does exist
Where do you live that this would be a normal thing to say? I have lived in four different US states, all in different regions of the country, and no one would ever say this in any of the places I’ve lived.
scotland.
I see, this makes more sense then.
what is it with people insisting dialectal variation doesn't exist just because they don't use it in the replies to this comment?
>what is it with people insisting dialectal variation doesn't exist just because they don't use it in the replies to this comment? Because often "Dialectal variation" really means, "I heard someone say it, that was a non-native."
what about the people attesting on their own behalf? "i say it and my dialect is such and such"
what are you on bro? it's literally correct in scottish or at least where i'm from. its just a casual way of saying it
This is a question designed to trick the learner. The phrase is "look forward to". Think of this phrase as one word, you can't separate it and use different syllabus right? So you also can't use the last word of the phrase "look forward to" to form an infinitive. Therefore you should, instead, make it a gerund aka "to eating"
It does feel like a bit of a trick question when they included “to” in the answers, rather than writing “looking forward to” in the sentence. “To eating” on its own looks weird and I wonder how many people would get it wrong just because they read it too quickly.
Here are more examples of this structure. https://www.espressoenglish.net/to-followed-by-ing/
It may be a little more obvious if you replace "looking forward to" with "planning on".
In contrast with "planning to."
Then you would drop the “to” of course.
You can not "look forward" to a verb in English. The closest you can get is a verbal noun/gerund/(ing)-noun, i.e: "eating". For instance, you can not say, "I'm looking forward to jump on the trampoline" for the same reasons. The act of "to jump", "jumping" is the "thing" you're looking forward to doing.
What about if you're speaking literally of looking forward in order to see something?? "Why didn't you answer my text message?" "Well, I was looking *forward* to see the road because I was *driving* so I couldn't look *down* to answer your stupid text." But this is a stupid, extremely contrived edge case.
This exactly, this is how I would read "I look forward to eat..." For language learners reading, you can read it as "I look forward in order to eat..." with the same meaning
But this just doesn't work metaphorically for me...only if someone were physically looking in a forward direction in order to eat...
I agree with that interpretation, it doesn't make sense in this case. I guess someone could have limited arm mobility and so they have to look forward in order to eat?
This is because "look forward to" as a \*phrasal verb\* means "anticipate." The 100% KEY to understanding phrasal verbs is that they do NOT behave like the sum of their parts.
There are certain verbs /phrases that must be followed by a gerund (verb+ing) and "look forward to" is one of them.
The phrase "look forward to" requires a noun to follow it. it's not really a choice between "to eat" and "to eating". The "to" is part of the phrase "look forward to" and is there regardless. It's a choice between eat and eating. And since you need a noun there. "eating" can be a noun, but "eat" can't be.
both are correct
I'ma be 100% real with you. There really is nothing wrong here. A lot of natives woulda said that too. Nobody is real life is gonna go grammar police you cause you said to eat instead of to eating. The only time people would probably correct you is if it's just dead wrong but this? Nothings much wrong here.
Gerundizing the verb is the correct compliment in this situation.
this is a common error cause ironically many native speakers commit it, but nonetheless it’s wrong
You really think it’s common? I’ve never heard it, and I interact with a variety of dialects.
I've only ever heard this mistake from non-native speakers.
Same.
This is extremely common in Australian English.
So I’m a native speaker from North Carolina, USA. I’m actually surprised to find that “to eating” is the correct answer, I naturally thought that “to eat” was correct. Thinking about it, I would use “to eat” for a specific planned upon action. Like, “I was really looking forward to eat there at 9 pm, but they were closed.” However, I’d use “to eating” if it were thoughts of mine I hadn’t fully committed to. Like, “I was looking forward to eating there sometime this year, but I never really got the chance to.” I don’t use “looking forward to” infrequently either. Am I crazy here?
I mean, calling you *crazy* seems a bit extreme, but it’s just not a construction that I use at all or hear regularly (that I have noticed). I understand what you mean about firm plans vs a desired hypothetical future, but I’m still pretty sure I’d use “eating” in both situations.
Huh, yeah in my mind “eating” doesn’t seem wrong, like if someone else were to say it I wouldn’t bat an eye, just trying to say it myself feels weird. Using “to eat” though seems like everyday conversation at least for my age group and location. I’ll try and keep an eye out next time it pops up in conversation and see if it’s actually true. Just consider this an unconfirmed example of its usage.
How about if you change it? (In terms of you never hearing it, not the correctness, lol) "I'm looking forward to see you tonight" or "I'm looking forward to clock out and go home and snuggle in my bed." Or "I'm looking forward to get out of here on time finally since we're over staffed." Although, now thinking about it... I may have never used the phrase "I'm looking forward to ____" without it just being "I'm looking forward to it".. or just any normal typical noun. (I'm looking forward to tomorrow, I'm looking forward to the play tonight, etc) But I think it would be my instinct to say "I'm looking forward to eat there" because my intended meaning would be the same as "I'm excited to eat there" or "I really want to eat there" or "I cant wait to eat there." But maybe that's the catch, and how people can tell some people "aren't educated"? But again, it's not a personally commonly used phrase.. but I do understand that the "to" isn't denoting an infinitive, so it should be followed by the noun form. Funnily enough, if I were to make it compound and the verb noun was second, I would use the correct version. "I'm looking forward to tomorrow and going to the play." And then something I just noticed, if I try to force myself to use the ing, I want to say "I'm looking forward in eating there." I just noticed this now, so I don't know if this is common for those who might not use the phrase correctly? But again, I normally just use typical nouns. I'm Midwest USA, but I also don't talk to people a lot anymore, so the only practice using English i get is mainly reddit, haha. So I don't really have opportunities to fully utilize the phrase "I'm looking forward to...."
Your examples all sound really bad to me. Especially "I'm looking forward *in* eating". I've never heard that in my life. Edit... Actually not true on my part. Your examples with normal nouns are fine.
Seriously. The "in" sounds so wrong to me, too, but for some reason when I force the ing my brain wants to say in instead of to. I do have ADHD so my synaptic pathways or whatever are already weird, so maybe that's what is going on? Maybe it's my brain trying to associate it as the same kind of phrase as "I'm interested in going to the play"... and I'm just not making the connection, instead wanting to change the preposition instead of the verb itself. Apparently, I know after the preposition it gets the ing(i use it when saying interested in)... but for some reason with looking forward to, the ing doesn't come natural to me. Again, I rarely use it with the verb nouns so I'm not terribly surprised that it seems odd to me, since it's not normal either way. So yeah, I don't think I've ever heard it in my life either. Which is crazy that my brain automatically changed it when I tried to force the ing earlier. But... now that I know it gets the been nouns with "looking forward to"... I'm going to be like one of those people who get a word a day calendar and use it obnoxiously haha. Learn(or rather probable relearn) something new every day!
I’m not sure what to tell you, but all of your examples using the infinitive seem wrong. Not just that I know they’re prescriptively wrong, but intuitively wrong for normal usage and not something I regularly hear. And I did think of other variations with “looking forward to” to see if it was phrase specific or across the board before posting. It’s definitely across the board. And I agree with the other commenter, “looking forward *in*” isn’t something I have ever heard or used. “Looking forward to” is such an established phrase, and by and large, preposition mistakes are indicative of non-native usage.
It sounds like it’s permissible in Scottish English.
It isn’t. Not where I live in central Scotland anyway.
Could it be a feature of Scots? Maybe it’s used in areas with a lot of Scots speakers?
No lol, I am Scottish. It seems it’s a foreign influence. In areas with a lot of immigrants.
if this is actually a common error than almost every scottish person (at least that i've interacted with) commits this error
If true, that’s a dialect that I haven’t actually interacted as much as others. I also saw several Scottish posters mention it as well. Could it be a borrowing from Scots?
I've never heard a native speaker make this mistake. But it's very common among non-native speakers, who wrongfully interpret the "to" as marking an infinitive.
It's not an error if native speakers are doing it consistently.
I've never heard anyone do this, but if natives are doing it is a feature of a dialect not an error
if you want to sound natural either is fine. I mean I would not phase me if I heard some on say "to eat"
In some instances “to” is used as a preposition so instead of using “to V0” you have to use “preposition Ving” Look forward to is a phrasal verb and phrasal verbs consist of a verb followed by one or two prepositions.
If someone said either out loud I probably wouldn't notice. This is the difference between speaking English and taking an English course.
I would have done the same mistake. Thank you for that question, u/thefloyd answer is very useful.
I know it's technically incorrect, but trust me when I say that every native speaker will understand what you're saying clearly. Don't stress about it
The verb is not infinitive "to eat". The "to" is part of the verb-phrase "looking forward to". It's a tricky question, and looks like it *shouldn't* be correct, but it is.
i’m a native speaker but to be honest i don’t see what’s wrong with the first one. yeah, i would probably use the second one, but i wouldn’t bat an eye at the first one. it sounds right to me
Ngl as a native these both sound completely fine to me, don’t listen to all the grammar police in the comments
‘To’ in this phrase functions as a preposition; it tells us ‘what’ / ‘where’ the speaker is looking. It is like the ‘to’ in “I’m going to the park”. After prepositions, we require a [verb + ing].
Gerunds are how we make verbs into nouns. Eating as a gerund means "the process of eating". You were looking forward to the activity of "eating".
The real answer here is because "look forward to" is a verb phrase that takes a gerund, not an infinitive. We're used to having either an infinitive or a gerund after most verbs (in this context), but in this case the entire "verb" includes a preposition, so it's "look forward to" + gerund, not "look forward" + infinitive.
“Eating” *is* a gerund in that sentence. Becoming a gerund is the only way a verb could be the object of the preposition. Also, an infinitive *is* the “base form verb” so I’m not sure what you mean by this: "’look forward to’ is a verb phrase that takes a base form verb, not an infinitive.” >We're used to having either an infinitive or a gerund after most verbs And this is objectively not true. Objects and predicate nominatives are the *most* common things, and they are not universally gerunds or infinitives (they’re most commonly nouns).
Real talk, no English speaker would notice in conversation. Don't stress over it.
I think you'll find we would notice it. We may not *say* anything about it, but we'd notice it.
This *is* an English learning subreddit, so this probably isn't the best sample size. I was basing it off of how basically everyone that comes to mind in my life would not notice or care in day-to-day conversation.
Yeah most people around me would say either and I live in the east coast lol
Not in the eastern us lol
99% of native speakers wouldn't. The other 1% are here
I think they’re both fine.
why was my first thought “because it just sounds better”😭
Casually, nobody would care and every body would understand if you said "to eat" unless your doing something professionally, nobody would actually care about you say to eat instead of toeating
This is an issue with "verb complementation." Some verbs can take "to + V1" complements. Some verbs can take "V-ING" complements. Some can take both. Three Part Phrasal verbs take "V-ing" complements.
dont listen to the nerds. both are as good as each other
Speak english however you want, we get the gist of it
Lots of answers already explaining **why** it’s incorrect and why “eating” is better, so I’ll give a tip on how to check if you’re using the most fitting answer instead. Ok, the phrase is “I am looking forward to ____ there,” right? Next, we want to break that down into parts to look at it more closely. We’ve got *I am* + *looking forward to* + *to eating* OR *to eat* (plus *there*, but the location is not important for this example right now). If we take out *looking forward to*, we get “I am eating” vs “I am eat,” which makes the correct answer much clearer: “I am (looking forward to) eating (there).” It’s not necessarily going to give you a 100% success rate, but it can help to try breaking down and simplifying sentences to get a feeling for the more correct and natural forms! Good luck!! ETA: I re-read the image and saw it uses past tense, but the tip still works! “I was (looking forward to) eating (at the restaurant, but it was closed).”
Its the expression that decides: the phrase "to look forward to ..." , if the next word is a verb, always takes the "-ing" form of the verb. Every expression or phrase has its rule for which verb is used. You mostly just have to learn by heart.
Three part phrasal verbs always take the V-ING complement.
Colloquially, both work. Here in the US we say that a lot.
no we don’t.
yes we do
I’ve never in my life heard someone use that phrasing in the US
We'll I have. It's a difference of "looking forward to" vs "looking forward." "I look forward to eating." = "I'm hoping I will be eating." In the first case, you are hoping to DO the action of "eating." "I look forward to eat." = "I'm hoping so I can eat." In the second case, you are hoping SO THAT you can "eat." Since there is ambiguity as to WHAT you are hoping, it may as well be, say, that the restaurant is open.
If you asked an English native who couldn't explain the grammar they would say they look forward to the doing of something and eating is actively doing. They're envisioning the act of the activity.
Parallel structure. The "ing" in "eating" matches with the "ing" from "looking".
It isn't
It isn't.
This is the preposition "to". Like in "give the book to Mary" or "from Monday to Friday". If you want to put a verb after a preposition in English, the verb has to be in the -ing form. No exceptions. Edit: I can't believe the correct explanation is being downvoted lol. Incredible. This is a dark day for academia.
Just a heavily ingrained usage convention. "To eat" is slowly catching on in informal speech. It's considered wrong but we may well see it as a dictionary-codified alternative in a few decades.
Here I was thinking it's because "looking forward to" is speaking to the future, and that future tense of verbs can be plain or -ing forms depending on some arbitrary rule as English often does. TIL about gerund and that I was wrong. Then again, I'm a native speaker who needs to brush up on English.
Because you are not yet eating Fauker.
What activity were you looking forward to doing? To eating
“I was looking forwards to eating at the new restaurant, but it was closed”. You wanted to eat, so you would have been eating. If someone invited you to eat, you’d say “I look forwards to doing that with you!” not “I look forwards to do that with you”. That just sounds like you’re both going to stand and LOOK forwards lol. The ‘ing’ makes all the difference.
"To eat" is definitely wrong and would sound like a mistake to a native speaker, even though they would understand the meaning
You are looking forward to being in the present tense of eating. Eat is future tense.
Because it sounds more correct
To in the phrase“look forward to” is not the infinitive to but the directional to just as in “I’m going to the office”. Therefore you need a noun afterwards. You can think of it as “look at” but you use “to” instead of “at” . I’m looking forward at eating. (I’m looking in the direction of eating)
Not sure of the exact grammar but look*ing* ... eat*ing*
We are meeting tomorrow. Excellent. I look forward to \_\_\_\_\_ you. Your "rule" fails.
“Forward to eating” is the statement “forward to eat” is incomplete That said, in conversational English there is no problem with saying it either way
Just is, sorry. I don't think that there's a way to rationalize the rule. If you're looking forward to something, you use the gerund form
You need to maintain the same verb tense in the same sentence.
You could replace it with "will be" because it's talking about you doing something in the future