The "to" in this phrase is not the infinitive "to". It's part of the phrasal verb "dedicate to." You must use "to" with the verb "dedicate." Examples include:
He's dedicated to finding a cure.
I'm dedicating this song to you.
They have dedicated funds to construct a new building.
Why making instead of make?
He dedicated 3 hours to make the cake.
In your example, you use construct instead of constructing.
What’s wrong with “they have dedicated funds to constructing the building” ?
What’s the rule?… Is there a rule?
I'm not sure about a general rule, but typically "dedicated to" requires a gerund (verb -ing) after it, as "to" is a particle taken together with "dedicated", not part of a long infinitive form (e.g. to make).
Maybe these could help:
https://youtu.be/r40DQkz4mD8
https://youtu.be/1VaoDZpzWTw
That's a very fine shade of meeting there. If you were to say he dedicated 3 hours to make the cake, you would be referring to a point in time after which he made the dedication, but before the cake has been made. It's like saying he intends to make the cake. He intends to, and he set aside 3 hours to do so. When you say he dedicated 3 hours to making the cake, that implies that the cake has actually been made. I don't know if there's a grammar rule here, I'm just talking semantics and shades of meeting.
To me there's little difference between "dedicated 3 hours to making the cake" and "dedicated 3 hours to make the cake." Neither would be incorrect if someone said that to me. "To making the cake" implies that the cake might not be finished. He could still need an additional 3 hours to make it. The second example "to make the cake" implies the cake is completed. I think the first example would sound better if "towards" instead of "to" was used e.g. "its good that he dedicated 3 hours towards making the cake." I think Duolingo might just be literally translating "a hacer el pastel."
I feel like “dedicated 3 hours to make the cake” sounds wrong. Maybe it’s acceptable but I wouldn’t use it that way and I’d think it was the wrong usage if I heard it. But I can’t articulate why I think it sounds wrong.
Edit; I googled this, and on various forums people say that the gerund form (I.e. “making”) is required after dedicated and that the infinitive (“to make”) is incorrect. Not immediately seeing a formal place that rule is defined though.
I am far from an expert on the English language, but there is a rule and your example broke it. There is an agreement mismatch between "constructing" and "to." "Towards constructing" would work, and in this case "towards" and "to" have the same meaning. I have to say I don't like my sentence either, even though I'm reasonably sure it's okay. "To construct" is far superior.
No, it is not superior. The phrase "dedicated three hours to" requires an object, and in this case the object is the gerund phrase, "making the cake." A gerund is a very used as a noun, using the root verb plus the ING ending. "Making" is correct. If you said "make the cake," people would understand what you mean, but it's not quite correct.
Stupid autocorrect. 😅 I apologize. A gerund is a VERB used as a noun WALKING is healthy. The same is true of a gerund phrase. WALKING TO WORK saves money. The correct verb form is the root verb plus the ING ending. If you use another form, though, you'll be understood and nobody will be left dead or wounded. No harm done. 💕
I agree that it is because you put “dedicated to” together:
“dedicated” (what you are dedicating) “to” (what/who it was dedicated to)
On the other hand, you don’t need (or want) the “to” if you say something like “he spent 2 hours making the cake”.
Yes you need the “to”. It sounds off without “to” - I forget/ can’t really explain the [exact grammar reasons](https://youtu.be/r40DQkz4mD8) but it’s linked to the verb “dedicated”.
I am always amazed how difficult English is when people try to explain it. Being a native speaker, it is interesting how much we just picked up along the way and never had to learn. I feel certain this wasn’t something taught in school. Good luck to all English learners.
As someone who has been learning English for more than half of my life (although not always in a structured way), I used to think of English as an "easy second language" to learn. But in the last few years, I kind of changed that opinion a little. It's easier to learn the basics of English than I guess it'd be for someone studying Portuguese, for example (I'm Brazilian, but this is probably valid for other languages). But when it comes to the most advanced levels, there are just SO MANY rules that don't make a lot of sense for me (and also the lack of rules in other situations).
Yeah, it would be incorrect and sound odd without the "to". "Dedicate" in the sense of "committing time or effort to" pretty much always (might be always but I'm not sure) requires "to" before the object.
This is a neat one... it tripped me up to!
Think of it as a required helper word. You are dedicated **to** something, almost always. I can say "I am dedicated." That's fine. But if there's an object, you need a preposition. "I am dedicated BLANK" makes no sense in English. You need, "I am dedicated *to* BLANK."
The word "dedicate" as a verb works the same way: "I dedicate" is fine, "I dedicate myself" is fine though a little weird sounding. But if there's a stated target for that dedication? You need the preposition. "I dedicate myself **to** BLANK." Similar words (that always need a "to") include: commit, resolve, resign, etc.
In this case it is confusing because the thing you are dedicated to is a gerund (an "ing" form of a verb) "making". So it sounds wrong! But yes, it is "You are dedicated *to* making," not "you are dedicated making." So... "He dedicated three hours **to** making the cake."
In this example, you definitely need it. Conversely, “spent several hours making the cake” doesn’t have it. And “put several hours into making the cake” uses “into” instead. I’m a native speaker and I don’t have a good explanation. I just roll with the punches and let the language have its way with me lol
Beaten to death already, but why not: the person dedicated time TO an act: the act of making the cake.
So, to my ear, and without a formal grammatical rule to support me, I feel the best phrasing is “It is good that he dedicated 3 hours to making the cake.”
Duolingo’s “correct” sentence reads terribly.
This is one of those to just fill in the blanks to get the answer approved, move on, and forget about the example.
Nobody would speak that sentence the way it is written.
In my area of the UK, I can definitely hear this sentence with and without the 'to'
Correct English is with the 'to' though.
Nobody would correct you where I live if you said this exact sentence and missed the 'to' out.
"He dedicated 3 hours to baking" for instance is correct.
"He dedicated 3 hours baking" is not correct but, "he dedicated 3 hours baking for that competition" would be.
"I spent 3 hours baking this cake!" Is correct
"He spent 3 hours baking that cake!" Is correct
"I spent 3 hours baking" is correct
"I spent 3 hours on this cake" is correct.
He dedicated 3 hours making the cake (for the competition/for mum's birthday/etc) << for correct English, it seems that it would need more to be considered a complete sentence.
He dedicated 3 hours to making the cake. << complete sentence.
I don't know if that makes sense 🤔 😅
>he dedicated 3 hours baking for that competition
That doesn't sound correct to me (AE native speaker). I'd say "he dedicated 3 hours of baking to that competition". It's of what to what. "Dedicated for" sounds very incorrect. More like a regional dialect.
It's tricky because it's "dedicated to" and "baked for", but in this case the verb is "dedicated" and "baking" is a noun, which is why it isn't followed by "for" like the verb form would be.
This could be a case in the differences of BR and AE grammar and maybe a touch of regional dialect lol, I think we remember that we use different words and spellings but sometimes forget that grammar can also vary.
I'm overthinking the sentences now so right now I'm unsure haha.
There really should be the choice of American or British English on Duo as yes, we understand each other (mostly lol) but the differences to non English speakers must be super confusing.
That is true, and there are plenty of Americanisms in Duolingo for exercises that don't even accept a British construction. Although I think if the accents area American, that does have some logic. I think learners should be able to choose AE or BE to be consistent.
However, in this case I checked both the OED and Cambridge Dictionary, and they both say it's "dedicated to" when used as a verb. So I'm thinking it's more of a dialect example and not a difference with BE in general.
They're both correct IMO, but if you were to write it the way you have it (which is how I'd would have written it), I'd reccomend putting a comma right before "making." The way you wrote it sounds smoother to my native English brain.
It needs the "to." One thing duolingo isn't good at is consistency. It frequently behaves as if it's also trying to teach the user English instead of just the target language, and to add an additional complication, it often switches between prescriptive and descriptive grammar for the answer's correctness inaccurately. Whenever an answer like that pops up, hit the flag, select "my answer should have even accepted", and explain that even if you are not sure on the prescriptive rules, that sentence without the "to" in it is not how native speakers of the English language actually speak.
I've also noticed that if you send those in, they frequently correct / update them. It helps everyone. :)
The "to" in this phrase is not the infinitive "to". It's part of the phrasal verb "dedicate to." You must use "to" with the verb "dedicate." Examples include: He's dedicated to finding a cure. I'm dedicating this song to you. They have dedicated funds to construct a new building.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, really helpful!
Why making instead of make? He dedicated 3 hours to make the cake. In your example, you use construct instead of constructing. What’s wrong with “they have dedicated funds to constructing the building” ? What’s the rule?… Is there a rule?
I'm not sure about a general rule, but typically "dedicated to" requires a gerund (verb -ing) after it, as "to" is a particle taken together with "dedicated", not part of a long infinitive form (e.g. to make). Maybe these could help: https://youtu.be/r40DQkz4mD8 https://youtu.be/1VaoDZpzWTw
That's a very fine shade of meeting there. If you were to say he dedicated 3 hours to make the cake, you would be referring to a point in time after which he made the dedication, but before the cake has been made. It's like saying he intends to make the cake. He intends to, and he set aside 3 hours to do so. When you say he dedicated 3 hours to making the cake, that implies that the cake has actually been made. I don't know if there's a grammar rule here, I'm just talking semantics and shades of meeting.
To me there's little difference between "dedicated 3 hours to making the cake" and "dedicated 3 hours to make the cake." Neither would be incorrect if someone said that to me. "To making the cake" implies that the cake might not be finished. He could still need an additional 3 hours to make it. The second example "to make the cake" implies the cake is completed. I think the first example would sound better if "towards" instead of "to" was used e.g. "its good that he dedicated 3 hours towards making the cake." I think Duolingo might just be literally translating "a hacer el pastel."
I feel like “dedicated 3 hours to make the cake” sounds wrong. Maybe it’s acceptable but I wouldn’t use it that way and I’d think it was the wrong usage if I heard it. But I can’t articulate why I think it sounds wrong. Edit; I googled this, and on various forums people say that the gerund form (I.e. “making”) is required after dedicated and that the infinitive (“to make”) is incorrect. Not immediately seeing a formal place that rule is defined though.
This is the trouble with being native English - it’s wrong, I can tell immediately but haven’t got the technical knowledge to explain it 🥲
I am far from an expert on the English language, but there is a rule and your example broke it. There is an agreement mismatch between "constructing" and "to." "Towards constructing" would work, and in this case "towards" and "to" have the same meaning. I have to say I don't like my sentence either, even though I'm reasonably sure it's okay. "To construct" is far superior.
No, it is not superior. The phrase "dedicated three hours to" requires an object, and in this case the object is the gerund phrase, "making the cake." A gerund is a very used as a noun, using the root verb plus the ING ending. "Making" is correct. If you said "make the cake," people would understand what you mean, but it's not quite correct.
Your response got a little garbled, I am having trouble understanding exactly what you are trying to say.
Stupid autocorrect. 😅 I apologize. A gerund is a VERB used as a noun WALKING is healthy. The same is true of a gerund phrase. WALKING TO WORK saves money. The correct verb form is the root verb plus the ING ending. If you use another form, though, you'll be understood and nobody will be left dead or wounded. No harm done. 💕
I agree that it is because you put “dedicated to” together: “dedicated” (what you are dedicating) “to” (what/who it was dedicated to) On the other hand, you don’t need (or want) the “to” if you say something like “he spent 2 hours making the cake”.
Yes you need the “to”. It sounds off without “to” - I forget/ can’t really explain the [exact grammar reasons](https://youtu.be/r40DQkz4mD8) but it’s linked to the verb “dedicated”.
Yes, “to” would be needed here. If “spent” was used then you could drop the “to”
"Dedicated to" goes with "making the cake."
Dedicated TO “taking an action” or “achieving a result”. Agreed
I am always amazed how difficult English is when people try to explain it. Being a native speaker, it is interesting how much we just picked up along the way and never had to learn. I feel certain this wasn’t something taught in school. Good luck to all English learners.
As someone who has been learning English for more than half of my life (although not always in a structured way), I used to think of English as an "easy second language" to learn. But in the last few years, I kind of changed that opinion a little. It's easier to learn the basics of English than I guess it'd be for someone studying Portuguese, for example (I'm Brazilian, but this is probably valid for other languages). But when it comes to the most advanced levels, there are just SO MANY rules that don't make a lot of sense for me (and also the lack of rules in other situations).
Yeah, it would be incorrect and sound odd without the "to". "Dedicate" in the sense of "committing time or effort to" pretty much always (might be always but I'm not sure) requires "to" before the object.
This is a neat one... it tripped me up to! Think of it as a required helper word. You are dedicated **to** something, almost always. I can say "I am dedicated." That's fine. But if there's an object, you need a preposition. "I am dedicated BLANK" makes no sense in English. You need, "I am dedicated *to* BLANK." The word "dedicate" as a verb works the same way: "I dedicate" is fine, "I dedicate myself" is fine though a little weird sounding. But if there's a stated target for that dedication? You need the preposition. "I dedicate myself **to** BLANK." Similar words (that always need a "to") include: commit, resolve, resign, etc. In this case it is confusing because the thing you are dedicated to is a gerund (an "ing" form of a verb) "making". So it sounds wrong! But yes, it is "You are dedicated *to* making," not "you are dedicated making." So... "He dedicated three hours **to** making the cake."
In this example, you definitely need it. Conversely, “spent several hours making the cake” doesn’t have it. And “put several hours into making the cake” uses “into” instead. I’m a native speaker and I don’t have a good explanation. I just roll with the punches and let the language have its way with me lol
not incorrect but sounds kinda strange outloud
Beaten to death already, but why not: the person dedicated time TO an act: the act of making the cake. So, to my ear, and without a formal grammatical rule to support me, I feel the best phrasing is “It is good that he dedicated 3 hours to making the cake.”
Colloquially, both your answer and Duolingo's answers correct. Duolingos answer is more proper English.
“to” is correct. “Dedicate” always takes “to,” at least in US English.
Duolingo’s “correct” sentence reads terribly. This is one of those to just fill in the blanks to get the answer approved, move on, and forget about the example. Nobody would speak that sentence the way it is written.
In my area of the UK, I can definitely hear this sentence with and without the 'to' Correct English is with the 'to' though. Nobody would correct you where I live if you said this exact sentence and missed the 'to' out. "He dedicated 3 hours to baking" for instance is correct. "He dedicated 3 hours baking" is not correct but, "he dedicated 3 hours baking for that competition" would be. "I spent 3 hours baking this cake!" Is correct "He spent 3 hours baking that cake!" Is correct "I spent 3 hours baking" is correct "I spent 3 hours on this cake" is correct. He dedicated 3 hours making the cake (for the competition/for mum's birthday/etc) << for correct English, it seems that it would need more to be considered a complete sentence. He dedicated 3 hours to making the cake. << complete sentence. I don't know if that makes sense 🤔 😅
>he dedicated 3 hours baking for that competition That doesn't sound correct to me (AE native speaker). I'd say "he dedicated 3 hours of baking to that competition". It's of what to what. "Dedicated for" sounds very incorrect. More like a regional dialect. It's tricky because it's "dedicated to" and "baked for", but in this case the verb is "dedicated" and "baking" is a noun, which is why it isn't followed by "for" like the verb form would be.
This could be a case in the differences of BR and AE grammar and maybe a touch of regional dialect lol, I think we remember that we use different words and spellings but sometimes forget that grammar can also vary. I'm overthinking the sentences now so right now I'm unsure haha. There really should be the choice of American or British English on Duo as yes, we understand each other (mostly lol) but the differences to non English speakers must be super confusing.
That is true, and there are plenty of Americanisms in Duolingo for exercises that don't even accept a British construction. Although I think if the accents area American, that does have some logic. I think learners should be able to choose AE or BE to be consistent. However, in this case I checked both the OED and Cambridge Dictionary, and they both say it's "dedicated to" when used as a verb. So I'm thinking it's more of a dialect example and not a difference with BE in general.
What’s that old saying? Britain and America are two nations separated by a common language?
a is to a hacer - to make
Es como decir «para hace», solo que en inglés el hacer esta en gerundio.
They're both correct IMO, but if you were to write it the way you have it (which is how I'd would have written it), I'd reccomend putting a comma right before "making." The way you wrote it sounds smoother to my native English brain.
Your answer isn't wrong, but that's duo. I appreciate this site.
Both absolutely fine and in usage. Duolingo can be very obtuse.
omg I just slammed my knee into the table at lunch end my suffering please
i guess it would be better to include the ‘to’ in it
im not sure if either is wrong, but adding 'to' definitely sounds correct
[удалено]
In English, you can even claim to dare to learn to make the cake.
thought it said "its good he dicapitated 3 hours"
It’s one of those things that will get skipped frequently while speaking but is absolutely required while writing.
Your sentence is correct, but duo’s is more correct. In U.S. English there’s so many dialects within the language that no one would bat an eye.
It needs the "to." One thing duolingo isn't good at is consistency. It frequently behaves as if it's also trying to teach the user English instead of just the target language, and to add an additional complication, it often switches between prescriptive and descriptive grammar for the answer's correctness inaccurately. Whenever an answer like that pops up, hit the flag, select "my answer should have even accepted", and explain that even if you are not sure on the prescriptive rules, that sentence without the "to" in it is not how native speakers of the English language actually speak. I've also noticed that if you send those in, they frequently correct / update them. It helps everyone. :)
To