When to use the former and when to use the latter? Example:

We believe in seeking, and don't seek for someone to believe.

We believe in seeking, and don't seek for whom to believe.

Which one is the correct version?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Jim Reynolds, Dinusha, pyobum, ʇolɐǝz ǝɥʇ qoq, ColleenV Apr 17 '15 at 18:35

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Why do you think it might or might not be grammatical? Please explain why you are asking here. Because this site is not a substitute for having a friend to practice your English with. – curiousdannii Apr 17 '15 at 10:10
  • @curiousdannii I edited the question. – alexchenco Apr 17 '15 at 10:41
  • I think you still need to give us some more information. Or maybe you can ask this question in the ELL chat, where you can have a chance to have a conversation about it and make your question more clear and complete: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7227/english-language-learners – Jim Reynolds Apr 17 '15 at 12:42

Those sentences have completely different meanings, and they are both marginally grammatical; "marginal" in the sense that, when parsed, they make sense but are not in contemporary idiom. We must seek out a context where they make sense.

Let's eliminate the part of the sentence which has no bearing on the grammar, "in seeking, and". (Why has seeking been placed in italics?)

We don't seek for someone to believe.

We don't seek for whom to believe.

There are two verbs we should know about, believe, and believe in.

Do you believe in ghosts? Do you think ghosts actually exist?

Do you believe that politician? Or is he lying to save his own ass?

Believe can be used transitively (that is, we believe someone or something) but it can also be used absolutely, with an unstated object:

I believe!

In such absolute uses, only the context gives us the information we would need in order to know what it is that the speaker believes. With no context, the statement is grammatical but the meaning cannot be determined.

I believe!
--What do you believe? I've only just arrived and must have missed part of the conversation.

Let's go back to your first sentence.

We don't seek for someone to believe.

The object complement of "seek for" is "someone to believe", and believe has no object, so it must be an absolute use. This sentence could be paraphrased:

Our goal is not to cause someone else to place their trust in something.

We can change the meaning dramatically if we add the word "in":

We don't seek for someone to believe in.

Our goal is not to find someone in whom we can place our trust.

Now let's look at the second sentence:

We don't seek for whom to believe.

This sentence, if parsed "as is", is grammatical but somewhat archaic. It is not in contemporary English idiom. To me it sounds like something that could have been said during the British Raj in India. It could be paraphrased:

It is not our goal to discover which person we should believe.

P.S. Seek and seek for deserve their own separate question.

  • how about "We don't seek someone to believe"? Is that more common than, "We don't seek for someone to believe"? – alexchenco Apr 17 '15 at 12:07
  • We don't seek someone to believe would mean "We are not trying to find someone whom we can believe." It cannot be compared, in terms of frequency, against "We don't seek for someone to believe" because they mean different things. It would have to be compared against "We don't seek for someone to believe in". "Seek for" is complicating your sentence. "Seek" and "seek for" demand different object complements. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 17 '15 at 12:11

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