He came back to conspiracy?

[Polyester]

"No matter how he arranged the evidence, he came back to conspiracy."


I don't understand why the word "conspiracy" is a noun after the word "to".
In my brain, it should be write down a verb after "to", but this is a noun after "to"!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

"No matter how he arranged the evidence, he came back to conspiracy."


I don't understand why the word "conspiracy" is a noun after the word "to".
In my brain, it should be write down a verb after "to", but this is a noun after "to"!

Compare it to this:

No matter where he traveled, he came back to Paris.

- Where did the evidence lead him? To conspiracy.
- The conclusion he returned to was that there was a conspiracy.
- Conspiracy is the conclusion he kept returning to.
- The evidence pointed to conspiracy, no matter how he arranged it.

Does it make sense now?

 

[Polyester]

If the sentence is not included these "No matter how he arranged the evidence", it won't make any sense. Am I right?
Because the conspiracy is coming back to without arranged the evidence that it won't make any sense as well. Am I right?

 

[SoothingDave]

Context always helps make sense of what we read.

 

[Polyester]

What do you mean? SoothingDave
Do you think the sentence do not make any sense?

 

[SoothingDave]

Your original sentence makes sense because it supplies its own context.

If you just said "he came back to conspiracy" I would not necessarily know what you meant, and would probably think it an error.

Context helps us understand that what is meant is that he came back to (the conclusion that it was a) conspiracy.

 

[Tdol]

Because the conspiracy is coming back to without arranged the evidence that it won't make any sense as well. Am I right?

This doesn't make much sense to me- I cannot work out the meaning.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

If the sentence is not included these "No matter how he arranged the evidence", it won't make any sense. Am I right?

No. "No matter how he arranged the evidence" is a dependent clause. Without it, the rest is still a good sentence: "He came back to conspiracy."

Because the conspiracy is coming back to without arranged the evidence that it won't make any sense as well. Am I right?

No. The conspiracy did not come back. HE came back TO the conspiracy.

In other words, he came back to his conspiracy theory.

It's a tricky sentence. Go back and read it again.

 

[Polyester]

whatever he did anything, it will lead him to conspiracy?

 

[MikeNewYork]

No. No matter how often he examined the evidence, conspiracy still seemed the most likely.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

whatever he did anything, it will lead him to conspiracy?

Yes, that's more like it! In the past tense: The evidence led him to conspiracy.

 

[MikeNewYork]

"Whatever he did anything" is not correct.

 

[Polyester]

OK. Thank you helping me understand the sentence.
But, one thing i didn't understand as follow,
Bare infinitive(.......to Bare infinitive....)
Why that is a noun after "to"?

 

[Polyester]

"Whatever he did anything" is not correct.

How to say it correctly? MikeNewYork

 

[MikeNewYork]

No matter what he did, the evidence led him back to conspiracy.

 

[Polyester]

MikeNewYork,
But, I checked out the dictionay.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whatever
I found "no matter what" was equal to "whatever".
Why am I wrong?

 

[MikeNewYork]

But you didn't say "whatever". You said "Whatever he did anything". That makes no sense. "Whatever he did" would work.