Is the object necessary in “It teaches (all) to think”? [closed]
What are the differences between:
- It teaches to think.
- It teaches all to think.
I have found in a book that the 1st sentence isn’t correct. Is that right?
This type of construction seems uncertain and this comment (user Edwin Ashworth) provides clues in explaining that this is so.
Here is an instance of what this user refers to in the way of justifying this construction, although the verb has a complement.
(ref.) "it teaches to read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers"
As a fact, this construction does not occur much; I found one instance in Google Books.
(ref. 1, ) “it teaches to dance”
However, there occurs an important number of cases where the verb has a complement or an adjunct.
(ref. 1, 1870) It teaches to avoid labor, to avoid solitude, and to evade ...
(ref. 2, 2010) it teaches to be good.
(ref. 3, 1980) it teaches to see light,
So, it seems to me that a slight modification in the construction of the verb phrase makes it acceptable, which is not to say that there should be a possibility to preserve the plain meaning of the verb that way.
- it teaches to think truly/well/swiftly/…
The simplest means to establish that construction on firm ground seems to be the introduction of the pronoun "one". There are a few recorded cases of such a usage.
(ref. 1, 2001) It teaches one who they are, it teaches one to discern, it teaches one self reliance,
(ref. 2, 2004) It teaches one to give and take
(ref.3, 1831) Unless it teaches one to quote and cavil ?
(ref. 4, 201 1) It teaches one to grow up.