3

Which sentence would sound more natural? Are both of them grammatically correct? Which do you think is more correct?

See the example below for understanding how it works.

See the example below to understand how it works.

Improve this question
3
  • Here is the small answer for your question. In some cases, there is a difference between them. Consider, I'm sorry to bother you, this relates to (= I'm bothering you now). On the other hand, I'm sorry for bothering you, That is (=I bothered you earlier).
    – Hakan
    Feb 9, 2014 at 20:09
  • 2
    The second sentence is the correct one. Because understanding can also function as a noun, the first one could be modified to work: See the example below for a better understanding of how it works.
    – J.R. ♦
    Feb 9, 2014 at 21:45
  • @J.R. Can you post that as an answer?
    – Amal Murali
    Feb 10, 2014 at 17:39

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

"to understand" is the preferred usage in your example.

In Hakan's comment, as well, the first example, "I'm sorry to bother you" is correct, however the second "I'm sorry for bother" is not. "I'm sorry for bothering you" would actually be acceptable, however, in the present (as I'm doing it right now). If you bothered someone in the past and are sorry, it would be "I'm sorry for having bothered you" ..

When to use to or for is difficult and usually better just to learn which places to use each, rather than trying to make sense of the rules. I'm a native speaker of English, and teach ESL, and I can't even tell you the rule off the top of my head.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    @Amal - I think this answers your question. You must be careful when you ask "Which is grammatically correct?" because we can form a sentence that doesn't break any grammatical rules, yet it may still sound wrong, or make little sense. It depends on context and idiomatic usage. For example: "I drove over the hill" makes sense in a car, or on the golf course; however, "I drove seven yards past the pin" won't make much sense in a taxi cab, while "I drove seven blocks past the hotel" doesn't make much sense on the golf course. (Yet the carpenter may say, "I drove seven nails into the roof.")
    – J.R. ♦
    Feb 9, 2014 at 21:42
  • 2
    I think this is a poor quality answer. Quite apart from several (typos?) and suspect phrasing, it gives no explanation of why OP's first version is non-idiomatic (if not downright ungrammatical). J.R.'s comment to the question itself at least addresses the underlying issue - this answer adds nothing relevant, imho.
    – FumbleFingers
    Feb 10, 2014 at 3:40
1

See the example below to understand how it works.

This is the most correct statement.

The first example could be modified to be correct, like so:

See the example below for more of an understanding of how it works.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .