However, object pronouns are possible in structures with for.

The water is too salty for us to drink (it).

She has changed too much for me to recognize [her].

This is from "Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan.

I don't know in which situations I need to add object pronouns in structures with "too ... for ... to". Please explain it to me .

  • 1
    The point is not that the object pronoun is added in those sentences. The point is that it is omitted. That is why Swan puts them in parentheses. The sentence as written or spoken is just "The water is too salty for us to drink." That is what Swan's lesson teaches. – P. E. Dant Nov 13 '16 at 1:59
  • @P. E. Dant Thanks for your advice. But how about the word "recognize"? I think it needs to put object. – learner Nov 13 '16 at 2:37
  • 1
    The object is her. That is the point of the lesson in Mr Swan's book. We omit it because it is "understood" to be present, even though we don't speak or write it. – P. E. Dant Nov 13 '16 at 3:04

In the Third Edition of Practical English Usage, Michael Swan points out that in sentences which employ the structure too [adj] to [inf], we don't normally include the object pronoun whose referent is the subject of the sentence.

Thus in the sentence:

The water is too salty to drink (it).

...the subject of the sentence, water, is the referent (or antecedent) of the object pronoun it, which is the object of the infinitive to drink. In such situations, we usually omit the pronoun.

However, when such structures include for, we do sometimes include the object pronoun.

Thus, in the sentence:

The water is too salty for us to drink (it).

... we can include or omit the object pronoun as we choose.

Mr Swan provides other examples in which the use of the object pronoun is optional:

The radio was small enough for me to put (it) in my pocket.
Those tomatoes aren't ripe enough for the children to eat (them).

Your question, though, asks in which situations you need to add object pronouns, and that is not what Mr Swan addresses. He is more concerned about when we omit the object pronoun. You can think of it like this: use the object pronoun wherever it is necessary to preserve the meaning of a sentence, and omit it in the situations pointed out by Mr Swan. On p. 285, for instance, he writes:

If the noun or pronoun is the object of the infinitive, we do not add an object pronoun after the infinitive.
I gave her a paper to read, (NOT ... a paper to read it.)
He needs a place to live in, (NOT ... a place to live in it.)


The use of an object pronoun at the end of a sentence in such a construction is optional.

However, it's more common to drop it.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.