+0
Hi, everyone.

Please take a look at the following sentence.

Would you keep 'me' or omit it?

In the sentence [The question was difficult for the child to answer (it)],
it's obvious that 'it' is unnecessary. If the same rule applies to ,
'me' should not appear. At one moment I think 'me' is not called for, but at the next, somehow, it doesn't sound grating even if 'me' is used. Well, on second thought, the existence of 'me' makes the sentence sound smoother or more natural at least to me.

Your comments are appreciated.
Comments  
The cases are dissimilar, Komountain-- the 'it' is a simple direct object, while 'me' is the object of the preposition 'with'. A preposition is no good without its object. You need to keep the whole phrase or drop it all:

'I walked slowly enough for the child to keep pace.'
Wow, quick response.
Thank you, MM.

How about this?
1. The man ran too fast for the child to catch up. (good)
2. The man ran too fast for the child to catch up with. (seems to be good)
3. The man ran too fast for the child to catch up with him(the man). (no good)

#2 ends with 'with' with no object appearing after it. It seems ok to me. Is #2
acceptable, indeed? It it is, doubt lingers about your explanation. If it is not, the air is cleared.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Well, I didn't say it was a rule. Maybe only some prepositions are no good without their objects. Greenbaum mentions an odd class of prepositional verbs that 'sound awkward' with stranded prepositions-- 'keep pace with', 'catch sight of', 'give way to', etc.

Maybe someone else has a more definitive answer.

PS: I like #3 better than #2. I can't see anything wrong with #3.
Hello Komountain

I'm Paco from Japan. It has been a long time since we had the last talk. It's nice to know you look as fine as before.

As you are far more advanced learner than me, I am not in a right position to answer your question. But I incidentally found in a Japanese online site [[url="http://www.biseisha.co.jp/lab/lab1/27.html "] Okada lecture No27 [/url] and [url="http://www.biseisha.co.jp/lab/lab1/28.html "] Okada lecture No28 [/url]] some discussion that seems to relate to your question. The author is Professor Nobuo Okada who is teaching English at Osaka University. As it is written in Japanese and rather too lengthy, I'll shorten what he is saying there.

Okada started his discussion answering a question from a learner. The question is whether one should delete "him" in "He ran too fast for me to keep up with (him)". To this, Okada answered that we can go either with or without "him". According to Okada, the phrase "for me" can be interpreted as a sentential adverb in the sentence "He ran too fast for me to keep with" and the sentence can be paraphrased as "For me, he ran too fast to keep up with" (Nobody can know whether I tried to keep up with him or not). In the sentence "He ran too fast for me to keep with me", on the other hand, "for me to keep with me" works as a semi clause and the sentence can be paraphrased as "He ran so fast that I could not keep up with him" or "Because he ran very fast, I could not keep up with him"

What Okada is insisting in his lecture is that there are two kinds of "for ~". To show this clearly, he quoted Chomsky's example.
(Ex-1) It is pleasant for the rich for the poor immigrants to do the hard work.
Here, "for the rich" is clearly a sentential adverb, and we can move it at either the sentence head or tail: "For the rich, it is pleasant for the poor immigrants to do the hard work" or "It is pleasant for the poor immigrants to do the hard work, for the rich". On the other hand, "for the poor" is regarded nothing but the subject of the infinitive "to do", and therefore we cannot move it to any other position.

(Ex-2a) This problem is too abstract (for Bill) [to solve].
(Ex-2b) This problem is too abstract [for Bill to solve it].
In the sentence (2a), "for Bill" works as a sentential adverb, and the sentence can be paraphrased as "For Bill, this problem is too abstract to solve". In another words, "to solve" in (2a) can be taken as adjoining directly to "abstract". On the other hand, in (2b), the infinitival clause "for Bill to solve it" as a whole adjoins to "abstract", and the sentence can never be paraphrased as "For Bill, this problem is too abstract to solve it".

These are the main points of Okada's lecture. However, in the last past of the lecture, he also added the influence of "distance" on the naturalness in the construct "too ~ for ~ to ~", which was pointed out by Ross in 1964.
(Ex-3a) The rock is too heavy for me to pick it up.
(Ex-3b) This rock is too heavy for me to begin to decide about helping Bob to try to pick it up.
(Ex-3c) This rock is too heavy for me to begin to decide about helping Bob to try to pick up.
The sentence (3a) sounds odd to most of native speakers. But to native speakers (3b) sounds more natural than (3c). It is due to the fact that "pick up" is positioned too far from "this rock" in (3b) and (3c) compared with (3a).

I hope this will serve as any help to you.

paco
deleted by the poster on account of the repetition of the same message
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hi, Paco.

I thank you for your efforts to translate the lengthy delineation of Prof. Okada for me.
Glad to read your posts, as always, and happy to see you are as enthuiastic as ever about offering help to other learners.

As one learner to another, I feel languages have some aspects of vagueness or borderline-
ness. This thread seems to be one of them. I like Okada's distance theory. That's eloquent.
Once again, many thanks for your translation. I wish I could read Japanese. I know just a few sentences. One of them is Sayonara.

p.s.:I just wonder how your retirement plans are being formalized.
Hello Komountain

I have to work still more years for my family, despite the fact my brain cells are getting broken day by day. Emotion: crying
I'll tell you my retirement plans when they are completely fixed. Emotion: smile

paco