“We can pay to” Vs. “We can pay”
Is it necessary to use the preposition 'to' in the following sentence or we can omit it?
We can pay to Boris tomorrow.
By omitting it'll be:
We can pay Boris tomorrow.
prepositions
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
add a comment |
Is it necessary to use the preposition 'to' in the following sentence or we can omit it?
We can pay to Boris tomorrow.
By omitting it'll be:
We can pay Boris tomorrow.
prepositions
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
1
I have never heard it used and it sounds bizarre. You give money to someone, but you simply pay them.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
@Jason: That's not quite it. You can give John the money / give the money to John, and you can pay John the money / pay the money to John. But whereas you can intransitively just pay John, you can't just give John without an "object" - except in some contrived context where you're treating John himself as a "gift" that you might offer to someone else (as an object of barter - a slave, for example).
– FumbleFingers
2 hours ago
@FumbleFingers My comment was only about the two specific sentences in the question. The first version would never normally be used.
– Jason Bassford
1 hour ago
@JasonBassford: My comment was bungled anyway - I should have said monotransitively, not intransitively. Point being that you can ditransitively pay John £10 or give John £10 with much the same sense (in both cases John is the direct object, and £10 is the indirect object). But whereas you can use monotransitively pay John OR pay £10 as "less informative" versions of the ditransitive utterance, only give £10 would still fit the context - give John forces us to understand a completely different role for John.
– FumbleFingers
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Is it necessary to use the preposition 'to' in the following sentence or we can omit it?
We can pay to Boris tomorrow.
By omitting it'll be:
We can pay Boris tomorrow.
prepositions
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
Is it necessary to use the preposition 'to' in the following sentence or we can omit it?
We can pay to Boris tomorrow.
By omitting it'll be:
We can pay Boris tomorrow.
prepositions
prepositions
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
edited 32 mins ago
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
asked 2 hours ago
Perplexed folks
11k55180315
11k55180315
1
I have never heard it used and it sounds bizarre. You give money to someone, but you simply pay them.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
@Jason: That's not quite it. You can give John the money / give the money to John, and you can pay John the money / pay the money to John. But whereas you can intransitively just pay John, you can't just give John without an "object" - except in some contrived context where you're treating John himself as a "gift" that you might offer to someone else (as an object of barter - a slave, for example).
– FumbleFingers
2 hours ago
@FumbleFingers My comment was only about the two specific sentences in the question. The first version would never normally be used.
– Jason Bassford
1 hour ago
@JasonBassford: My comment was bungled anyway - I should have said monotransitively, not intransitively. Point being that you can ditransitively pay John £10 or give John £10 with much the same sense (in both cases John is the direct object, and £10 is the indirect object). But whereas you can use monotransitively pay John OR pay £10 as "less informative" versions of the ditransitive utterance, only give £10 would still fit the context - give John forces us to understand a completely different role for John.
– FumbleFingers
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
I have never heard it used and it sounds bizarre. You give money to someone, but you simply pay them.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
@Jason: That's not quite it. You can give John the money / give the money to John, and you can pay John the money / pay the money to John. But whereas you can intransitively just pay John, you can't just give John without an "object" - except in some contrived context where you're treating John himself as a "gift" that you might offer to someone else (as an object of barter - a slave, for example).
– FumbleFingers
2 hours ago
@FumbleFingers My comment was only about the two specific sentences in the question. The first version would never normally be used.
– Jason Bassford
1 hour ago
@JasonBassford: My comment was bungled anyway - I should have said monotransitively, not intransitively. Point being that you can ditransitively pay John £10 or give John £10 with much the same sense (in both cases John is the direct object, and £10 is the indirect object). But whereas you can use monotransitively pay John OR pay £10 as "less informative" versions of the ditransitive utterance, only give £10 would still fit the context - give John forces us to understand a completely different role for John.
– FumbleFingers
1 hour ago
1
1
I have never heard it used and it sounds bizarre. You give money to someone, but you simply pay them.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
I have never heard it used and it sounds bizarre. You give money to someone, but you simply pay them.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
@Jason: That's not quite it. You can give John the money / give the money to John, and you can pay John the money / pay the money to John. But whereas you can intransitively just pay John, you can't just give John without an "object" - except in some contrived context where you're treating John himself as a "gift" that you might offer to someone else (as an object of barter - a slave, for example).
– FumbleFingers
2 hours ago
@Jason: That's not quite it. You can give John the money / give the money to John, and you can pay John the money / pay the money to John. But whereas you can intransitively just pay John, you can't just give John without an "object" - except in some contrived context where you're treating John himself as a "gift" that you might offer to someone else (as an object of barter - a slave, for example).
– FumbleFingers
2 hours ago
@FumbleFingers My comment was only about the two specific sentences in the question. The first version would never normally be used.
– Jason Bassford
1 hour ago
@FumbleFingers My comment was only about the two specific sentences in the question. The first version would never normally be used.
– Jason Bassford
1 hour ago
@JasonBassford: My comment was bungled anyway - I should have said monotransitively, not intransitively. Point being that you can ditransitively pay John £10 or give John £10 with much the same sense (in both cases John is the direct object, and £10 is the indirect object). But whereas you can use monotransitively pay John OR pay £10 as "less informative" versions of the ditransitive utterance, only give £10 would still fit the context - give John forces us to understand a completely different role for John.
– FumbleFingers
1 hour ago
@JasonBassford: My comment was bungled anyway - I should have said monotransitively, not intransitively. Point being that you can ditransitively pay John £10 or give John £10 with much the same sense (in both cases John is the direct object, and £10 is the indirect object). But whereas you can use monotransitively pay John OR pay £10 as "less informative" versions of the ditransitive utterance, only give £10 would still fit the context - give John forces us to understand a completely different role for John.
– FumbleFingers
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You can safely omit the preposition. In fact, you should.
You would include the preposition only if you had another direct object after pay, such as money, the debt, the sum owing or similar.
So it's either:
We can pay Boris tomorrow
or
We can pay the money to Boris tomorrow.
Alternatively, you could reverse the direct and indirect objects to read:
We can pay Boris the money tomorrow.
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f190333%2fwe-can-pay-to-vs-we-can-pay%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can safely omit the preposition. In fact, you should.
You would include the preposition only if you had another direct object after pay, such as money, the debt, the sum owing or similar.
So it's either:
We can pay Boris tomorrow
or
We can pay the money to Boris tomorrow.
Alternatively, you could reverse the direct and indirect objects to read:
We can pay Boris the money tomorrow.
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
add a comment |
You can safely omit the preposition. In fact, you should.
You would include the preposition only if you had another direct object after pay, such as money, the debt, the sum owing or similar.
So it's either:
We can pay Boris tomorrow
or
We can pay the money to Boris tomorrow.
Alternatively, you could reverse the direct and indirect objects to read:
We can pay Boris the money tomorrow.
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
add a comment |
You can safely omit the preposition. In fact, you should.
You would include the preposition only if you had another direct object after pay, such as money, the debt, the sum owing or similar.
So it's either:
We can pay Boris tomorrow
or
We can pay the money to Boris tomorrow.
Alternatively, you could reverse the direct and indirect objects to read:
We can pay Boris the money tomorrow.
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
You can safely omit the preposition. In fact, you should.
You would include the preposition only if you had another direct object after pay, such as money, the debt, the sum owing or similar.
So it's either:
We can pay Boris tomorrow
or
We can pay the money to Boris tomorrow.
Alternatively, you could reverse the direct and indirect objects to read:
We can pay Boris the money tomorrow.
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
answered 2 hours ago
Ronald Sole
8,8761917
8,8761917
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
add a comment |
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
In your last two examples, I'd probably change pay to give more often than not: We can give Boris the money tomorrow.
– J.R.♦
1 hour ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
@J.R. though I agree in normal use, the OP was about the word "pay" specifically. As an ESL related question, "pay" needs to be in the answer.
– Jesse Steele
37 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f190333%2fwe-can-pay-to-vs-we-can-pay%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I have never heard it used and it sounds bizarre. You give money to someone, but you simply pay them.
– Jason Bassford
2 hours ago
@Jason: That's not quite it. You can give John the money / give the money to John, and you can pay John the money / pay the money to John. But whereas you can intransitively just pay John, you can't just give John without an "object" - except in some contrived context where you're treating John himself as a "gift" that you might offer to someone else (as an object of barter - a slave, for example).
– FumbleFingers
2 hours ago
@FumbleFingers My comment was only about the two specific sentences in the question. The first version would never normally be used.
– Jason Bassford
1 hour ago
@JasonBassford: My comment was bungled anyway - I should have said monotransitively, not intransitively. Point being that you can ditransitively pay John £10 or give John £10 with much the same sense (in both cases John is the direct object, and £10 is the indirect object). But whereas you can use monotransitively pay John OR pay £10 as "less informative" versions of the ditransitive utterance, only give £10 would still fit the context - give John forces us to understand a completely different role for John.
– FumbleFingers
1 hour ago