[Grammar] benefits to doing something?

[Heidi]

Dear teachers,

"In fact, he thinks there are certain benefits to having a nonnative speaker as a language teacher."

I'm not sure what this sentence means, especially, why we're using 'to having' instead of 'to have' or 'of having'? Would you please explain it for me?

Here the use of 'benefits to having a ...' is similar to the 'to' in the following sentence?

"My trip to the south was of much benefit to my health."

 

[5jj]

"In fact, he thinks there are certain benefits to having a non-native speaker as a language teacher."

I'm not sure what this sentence means, especially, why we're using 'to having' instead of 'to have' or 'of having'? Would you please explain it for me?
'To' is not part of a 'to'-infinitive in this sentence. Both 'in' and 'of' would be possible.

Here the use of 'benefits to having a ...' is similar to the 'to' in the following sentence?

"My trip to the south was of much benefit to my health."
Yes. The preposition is followed by a noun, pronoun or verbal noun (=gerund, 'ing'-form)

5

 

[Raymott]

I'm not sure what this sentence means, especially, why we're using 'to having' instead of 'to have' or 'of having'? Would you please explain it for me?
'To' is not part of a 'to'-infinitive in this sentence. Both 'in' and 'of' would be possible.

I'm not sure if you're calling "to" wrong here. I would.

 

[bwkcaj_ca]

"Having" is a gerund.

A gerund is a part of speech which is part noun and part verb.

It's easy to see the verb part since 'having' is of form of the verb 'have."

The noun part is a little more difficult. It might be a easier to see
if we change the sentence a little,

"In fact, he thinks there are certain benefits to the having of a nonnative speaker as a language teacher."

This is still a grammatically correct, if a little strange, sentence.

Now you can see that 'having' follows the article 'the' so it must function as a noun.

So you may now see that 'having' meets the definition of a gerund

Gerunds can play several roles in a sentence, one of which is as the
object of a preposition, as it does here. It is the object of the preposition
'to.'

The meaning of the sentence should be much easier for you to understand.

The writer is probably going to continue by twriting about ways he/she thinks it is better (there are benefits) to have a non-native speaker as a
teacher.

The simple, if not very satisfying, answer to your last question is that the sentence you quote doesn't require a gerund.

 

[5jj]

I'm not sure if you're calling "to" wrong here. I would.

It did not strike me as wrong when I read it. Now that you have mentioned it, I suppose it is.

If we speak of the benefits to somebody, they are the people who enjoy the benefits. Strangely, I find that a sentence such as "I find many benefits to having a car" not as obviously unacceptable as I would have expected.

 

[Raymott]

It did not strike me as wrong when I read it. Now that you have mentioned it, I suppose it is.

If we speak of the benefits to somebody, they are the people who enjoy the benefits. Strangely, I find that a sentence such as "I find many benefits to having a car" not as obviously unacceptable as I would have expected.

I can see that there might be benefits to you in having a car. Perhaps "to" in your sentence just sounds unexceptional because so many people say it. I can't see the grammatical justification for the usage though - or the benefits to it [sic].

 

[birdeen's call]

I can see that there might be benefits to you in having a car. Perhaps "to" in your sentence just sounds unexceptional because so many people say it. I can't see the grammatical justification for the usage though - or the benefits to it [sic].

Raymott, do you consider

That's all there is to it.

incorrect too?

 

[Raymott]

Raymott, do you consider

That's all there is to it.

incorrect too?

No.

 

[Heidi]

I can see that there might be benefits to you in having a car. Perhaps "to" in your sentence just sounds unexceptional because so many people say it. I can't see the grammatical justification for the usage though - or the benefits to it [sic].

"Thers are many financial benifits to owning your own home." (Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary)

I guess this sentence can be interpreted as 'there are many financial benefits to you in owning your own home'?

Thank you!

 

[Heidi]

I'm not sure what this sentence means, especially, why we're using 'to having' instead of 'to have' or 'of having'? Would you please explain it for me?
'To' is not part of a 'to'-infinitive in this sentence. Both 'in' and 'of' would be possible.

5

"The benefits of having a nonnative speaker as a language teacher are numerous."

Do you think the above sentence is acceptable?

Thank you.

 

[Raymott]

"The benefits of having a nonnative speaker as a language teacher are numerous."

Do you think the above sentence is acceptable?

Thank you.

Grammatically, yes. I'd question the fact. I'd also write "non-native".

 

[Heidi]

Grammatically, yes. I'd question the fact. I'd also write "non-native".

Thank you, Raymott. And yes, that's only an example sentence. Maybe I should have written ' I think that having a native speaker...'

I have another question.
"Thers are many financial benifits to owning your own home." (Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary)

Do you think this sentence can be interpreted as 'there are many financial benefits to you in owning your own home'?

Thank you!

 

[Raymott]

Thank you, Raymott. And yes, that's only an example sentence. Maybe I should have written ' I think that having a native speaker...'

I have another question.
"Thers are many financial benifits to owning your own home." (Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary)

Do you think this sentence can be interpreted as 'there are many financial benefits to you in owning your own home'?

Thank you!

Yes. There's no problem in understanding what "benefit to" means. But I don't think you can imply "benefit to you of/in" in all such sentences. Naturally, there has to be a benefit of/in X to someone/something. If there is no beneficiary, there is no benefit.

 

[Heidi]

Yes. There's no problem in understanding what "benefit to" means. But I don't think you can imply "benefit to you of/in" in all such sentences. Naturally, there has to be a benefit of/in X to someone/something. If there is no beneficiary, there is no benefit.

Thank you, Raymott.