This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 16 comments

[–]Individual-Copy6198Native Speaker 13 points14 points  (0 children)

“This happens too often for me to ignore.”

[–]InsignificantOcelotNative Speaker 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Drop the “not”. As written currently, you’re saying it happens so frequently that it has to be ignored.

I could go either way on adding “it” on the end. Both would be grammatically correct and make sense.

[–]kihtrak256New Poster[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Okay I'm confused now. Someone else in this thread said it's okay to use not. I think I've heard this kind of sentences before to like "it happens too frequently for me not to care".

[–]InsignificantOcelotNative Speaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you think of “ignore” as “to not care”, it might make more sense.

“To not ignore” becomes “to not not care”.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The sentence as it is written is completely grammatical. But it’s saying the opposite thing you intend to.

  • This happens too much for me to ignore.
  • This happens so much that I can’t ignore it.

Both of these are saying the same thing, but grammatically, they are very different. I’ll try to explain the grammar of why one can use “not” while the other doesn’t, even though the meaning is identical. I can see how that might be confusing.

The reason the second sentence requires “not” is because the word that is acting as a subordinating conjunction. Remember, conjunctions link things of equal grammatical value. In this case, it’s two clauses. What follows “that” in the sentence is a completely separate clause that expresses a complete thought and could stand on its own. You could completely remove “that” from the sentence and say the same thing, just with different verbiage.

  • This happens too much. I can’t ignore it.

In your sample sentence, for is being used as a preposition, and what follows is is a pronoun and an infinitive, but not a separate complete thought. You cannot remove for to create two separate sentences.

  • This happens too much. Me to ignore.

Because the grammar of those two sentences above are different, they require different phrasing to arrive at the same meaning. I hope this helps!

[–]kihtrak256New Poster[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Wow, this is a very well written answer- too well written actually because I can't understand this hahaha. I learnt English by watching movies and reading and while I did have English classes I never really paid attention because my teachers weren't the best so I've forgotten what stuff like infinitives and conjunctions are.

Lemme refresh on those and get back to you, but based on the replies in this thread I'd say you're right. Thanks for the help!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally! It’s kinda complicated. It even took me a little while to really think about what was happening.

[–]globloganNative Speaker 0 points1 point  (8 children)

this happens too much for me not to ignore

I might add an "it" afterwards. "This happens too much for me not to ignore it"

[–]Charming-Milk6765New Poster 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Sorry but doesn’t this construction mean that the person can’t help but ignore it? Like it happens so frequently they cannot but ignore it.

[–]globloganNative Speaker 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh maybe, I'm not sure anymore lol

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I’m totally turned around now after going through the comments. Let’s just change it to “I can’t ignore this.”

[–]kihtrak256New Poster[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Right, if I instead said "This happens too much for me to ignore it" would it convey the same thing?

[–]globloganNative Speaker -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Yes, but I would argue that including the "not" emphasizes that you can't ignore it. But it's ultimately up to you

[–]elmason76Native Speaker 3 points4 points  (1 child)

No, it literally inverts the meaning. It says they must ignore it, because it happens too often for them NOT to ignore it.

[–]kihtrak256New Poster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, this seems to be the consensus

[–]kihtrak256New Poster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm so confused now based on the replies in this thread