On 2010-08-18, at 1:28 AM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:

>      One of my pet peeves is when I hear people use "plan on" instead of "plan to."  One example would be: "If you plan on attending, arrive early," instead of the correct "If you plan to attend, arrive early." I hear it more and more on television and radio (no surprise there), but I am now reading it in newspapers. 

Here's the relevant part of the entry from the OED:

e. intr. colloq. to plan on: to intend to carry out (some action); to anticipate or be prepared for.

1914 E. R. BURROUGHS Tarzan of Apes xxvii. 370 She is planning on our going up there the first of the week. 1926 Amer. Oxonian July 99 If I were planning on going after a Rhodes Scholarship next year, I should read a great deal on foreign affairs. 1936 L. C. DOUGLAS White Banners ix. 195 We had not planned on such a large house. 1963M. SHADBOLT in C. K. Stead N.Z. Short Stories (1966) 314 We don't plan on any drinking. 1977 H. KAPLAN Damascus Cover iv. 35 Ari pressed for a date when he could plan on going abroad. 1996 Mountain View (Middlebury, Vermont) 24 Apr. 3/5 If you plan on travelling in the beginning of summer, the nights will bring a slight chill, so jeans and sweats are necessary.

I can antedate that by only 2 years with this citation from the Atlantic Monthly 1912:
"For them to plan on building them more stately mansions?"

'Plan on' went from 0.04 instances per million words in 1910-1919 to 0.4 per million words in the 50s to 3.15 PMW today, at least according to the COHA (search for [plan].[v*] on [v*g]). Coincidentally, 'plan to' was at that same frequency (3.15 PMW) in the first decade of the 20th cent and is now at 42.28 PMW. So 'plan on' is likely only about 100 years old, and is about 1/10th as common as 'plan to', but does that make the one right and the other wrong? Perhaps 'plan to' has taken over from 'mean to' and 'propose to'.

>      The way that I explain it to my high school students is as follows:  "on attending" is a prep phrase which can be an adj. or an adv., but not a noun, which is needed as the direct object of the transitive verb "plan."  Conversely, the infinitive phrase "to attend" may be used as the direct object noun that is needed here.
>    Well, have at it; I can take it.

Well, for starters, a prepositional phrase is what it is. A dog is a dog and a pig is a pig. Dogs often function as pets and pigs commonly function as a livestock. When people raise dogs for food though, the dog is functioning as livestock, not as a pig. And when the pig gets a name and lives in the house, it's functioning as a pet, not as a dog.

Similarly, to say that a PP can be an adj. or and adv. simply confuses the matter. A PP can function as a complement, and adjunct, or a modifier, but it can only belong to one category: PP.

Secondly, 'to'- infinitives do not function as objects, unless you're prepared to allow objects where no standard noun would fit (e.g., I hope ____).

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/