Is it "enough to worry" or "enough to be worried"?

Question

I'm trying to describe a scenario where, for a parent, their child has gone long enough (for them) to ______?

worry
be worried

Honestly, both of them sound ok to me (not a native speaker), apart from the fact that be worried is longer to spell out. And searching on Google Ngram shows that enough to worry is more prevalent, though enough to be worried is also used sometimes.

And I can also think of other situations where the phrase would be used:

The speed at which species are dying off is fast enough (for us) to ____
The radioactive wastes are leaking at an alarming rate, enough for us to ____

I'd like to know, is any one of them "wrong"/should be avoided, or is there any difference between these two, mood, emphasis, etc.? Any reason to choose one over the other?

Greybeard · Answer

There are three possibilities:

1.Their child has gone long enough (for them) to worry - intransitive infinitive - the parents worry.

(1a The long absence of their child worries them - transitive and active form.)

Their child has gone long enough (for them) to be worried - Worried is an adjective - you can see this by substituting another adjective, e.g. "angry"

Their child has gone long enough (for them) to be worried by the child's absence - This is the passive form and [by the child's absence] is the agent of the sentence. - you can see worried is the past participle by substituting another past participle, e.g. "angered."

Is it "enough to worry" or "enough to be worried"?

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question