Set fire to
Dwelling upon such a sentence for a while I still didn't come to any definite conclusion. That's why I ask you, my dear members of italki, to resolve it for me.

Here's a sentence:
" The heap of wood piled at the entrance was set fire to ".
Wouldn't be better to rephrase the same differently and namely -
" The heap of wood piled at the entrance was set afire."
Or there was meant something else that eluded me?

Thank you.

Question

Set fire to
Dwelling upon such a sentence for a while I still didn't come to any definite conclusion. That's why I ask you, my dear members of italki, to resolve it for me.

Here's a sentence:
" The heap of wood piled at the entrance was set fire to ".
Wouldn't be better to rephrase the same differently and namely -
" The heap of wood piled at the entrance was set afire."
Or there was meant something else that eluded me?

Thank you.

Answer

Yes, your rephrasing is better. Some people object to dangling prepositions. "This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put," said Winston Churchill. See http://quotationsbook.com/quote/45308/

Answer

Or was there something else meant that eluded me? (would sound better)

Answer

The first way to phrase it does not really exist in English. Instead, to use "set fire to", it should read "Someone set fire to the heap of wood piled at the entrance" (also, the second way is correct). It's a way of changing the emphasis on what is important in the sentence that exists in other languages, such as German, but not in English. (The "someone" who set the fire is not important [or is unknown] to the person coming to the entrance is not important right now, the fact that there is a fire there is.)

Answer

They're both correct. "Set afire" is somewhat archaic. So it would not be better. It is better to use "set fire to".

Ответы · 6

Все еще не нашли ответы?

Не упустите возможность выучить язык, не выходя из дома. Ознакомьтесь с подборкой опытных преподавателей и запишитесь на свой первый урок прямо сейчас!