My coffee is too hot for drink где ошибка

Your question implies that there is a similarity between these two sentences but I don’t see it. Could you explain?

____________________________________________________
Notes
(1) My coffee was too hot to drink it.
(1) My coffee was too hot to drink.

(2) I’m too smart for you two to try to innuendo with (me). (innuendo is not a verb)

The second example doesn’t really work for me at all, since it appears to be using «innuendo» as a verb which it’s not.

Your question implies that there is a similarity between these two sentences but I don’t see it. Could you explain?

____________________________________________________
Notes
(1) My coffee was too hot to drink it.
(1) My coffee was too hot to drink.

(2) I’m too smart for you two to try to innuendo with (me). (innuendo is not a verb)

Sorry about that. That was a typo. I was asking about this sentence:
(2) I’m too smart for you two to try innuendo with (me).

Is «My coffee was too hot to drink.» correct or a good sentence? I doubt its validity because it lacks the subject(who drinks the coffee?)
So I think «My coffee was too hot for me to drink» or «My coffee was too hot to be drunk» makes more sense to me.
Can anyone shed some light on this matter?

Any help would be appreciated.

Sorry about that. That was a typo. I was asking about this sentence:
(2) I’m too smart for you two to try innuendo with (me).

Innuendo can’t act as a verb (and you’re using it as a verb in your exampe), it’s always a noun.
Is «sexual innuendo» the meaning you have in mind? If so, this sentence could work:

‘I’m too smart for your innuendos’ (meaning ‘I’m too smart a person to be deluded/seducted by the sexual innuendo that your speech is full of’ but I honestly don’t know if this would be good English, so please wait for native speakers to confirm that (or offer another suggestion).

Is «My coffee was too hot to drink.» correct or a good sentence? I doubt its validity because it lacks the subject(who drinks the coffee?)
So I think «My coffee was too hot for me to drink» or «My coffee was too hot to be drunk» makes more sense to me.
Can anyone shed some light on this matter?

Any help would be appreciated.

I have no problem with «My coffee was too hot to drink.» The subject is coffee. The verb is was. Coffee was hot. Literally, this says that the coffee was too hot for anyone to drink, but it doesn’t matter because we have already identified it as my coffee.

I suppose that it’s possible that this could mean «the coffee that I made was too hot for my guests to drink,» but that meaning is unlikely and unless there was specific context no one would understand the sentence that way.

On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with «My coffee was too hot for me to drink.»

«My coffee was too hot to be drunk» sounds odd to me.

Innuendo can’t act as a verb (and you’re using it as a verb in your exampe), it’s always a noun.

I know and I made a mistake, which has been corrected.
Now that «innuendo» is not a verb but a noun as it should be, any response to my original question?

I know and I made a mistake, which has been corrected. Now «innuendo» is not a verb but a noun.

Sorry, I somehow didn’t notice that. In any case, I’m not quite sure whether «try innuendo with someone» is a valid phrase, so you would do well to wait for native speakers to confirm that.

I have no problem with «My coffee was too hot to drink.» The subject is coffee. The verb is was. Coffee was hot. Literally, this says that the coffee was too hot for anyone to drink, but it doesn’t matter because we have already identified it as my coffee.

I suppose that it’s possible that this could mean «the coffee that I made was too hot for my guests to drink,» but that meaning is unlikely and unless there was specific context no one would understand the sentence that way.

On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with «My coffee was too hot for me to drink.»

«My coffee was too hot to be drunk» sounds odd to me.

Thanks for your help. But I am still a bit confused.
I am too lazy to study hard. = I am so lazy that I do not study hard.
The coffee is too hot to drink. = The coffee is so hot that (the coffee?) does not drink.
That is the point which confuses me.
A «be too ADJECTIVE to do B»
Is the subject (A) necessarily also the one who does «B» ? Or does it just depend on context?

You have two different constructions:

Too x to… (verb)
Too y for… (object)

Your second example uses an entire phrase in the object slot, and this phrase requires the object me. If we place the coffee example into the second construction, we will need an object there as well, which can be me:

My coffee was too hot for me.

JE

You have two different constructions:

Too x to… (verb)
Too y for… (object)

Your second example uses an entire phrase in the object slot, and this phrase requires the object me. If we place the coffee example into the second construction, we will need an object there as well, which can be me:

My coffee was too hot for me.

JE

Your example «My coffee is too hot for me» is not similar in structure to (2). In your example, «for» takes «me» as its object, whereas in (2) «for» takes «you two» as its object, not «me».

Here’re my original sentences:
(1) My coffee was too hot to drink (it). («it» should be dropped.)
(2) I’m too smart for you two to try innuendo with me. (Shouldn’t «me» be dropped here?)

Let me add a third one structurally similar to (2):
(3) The coffee was too hot for me to drink (it). («it» should be dropped.)

In (3), I don’t think we need the object «it», do we?

The only structural difference in (2), distinguishable from (3), is that we have a verbal phrase «try innuendo with» instead of «drink».

Now, is this why we treat (2) and (3) differently?

In your example, «for» takes «me» as its object, whereas in (2) «for» takes «you two» as its object, not «me».

You are correct. Which is why I didn’t say that the sentences were similar in content but in structure.

Here’re my original sentences:
(1) My coffee was too hot to drink (it). («it» should be dropped.)
(2) I’m too smart for you two to try innuendo with me.

Let me add a third one structurally similar to (2):
(3) The coffee was too hot for me to drink (it). («it» should be dropped.)

In (3), I don’t think we need the object «it», do we?

We don’t need it and can’t have it.

The only structural difference in (2), distinguishable from (3), is that we have a verbal phrase «try innuendo with» instead of «drink».

The phrase is try innuendo with me(which has already been pointed out as awkward). The me is part of the phrase, and so cannot be dropped.

The construction in (1) is contained in (3); so naturally the rules will be the same and we will not include it. In English, this is how we state the idea.

The dog was too big to fight.
The scores were too good to beat.
The directions were too difficult to understand.

We would not include it, them, and them in the above sentences; even if we take these constructions and separate them with other prepositional phrases:

The dog was too big for me to fight.
The scores were too good for Jim to beat.
The directions were too difficult for the tourists to understand.

And of course we can separate them with even more prepositional phrases without changing the fact that we don’t include the it, them, and them:

The directions were too difficult for the tourists in the pajamas with monkeys on them to understand.

Now, is this why we treat (2) and (3) differently?

Not to go off topic too much, but there are dialects of English which have no problem dropping the me from (2), such as the one I speak:

I’m too smart for you two to try innuendo with.

But this is a different matter because the relevant structures of (2) and (3) are not the same.

Does this help clarify things?

JE

Not to go off topic too much, but there are dialects of English which have no problem dropping the me from (2), such as the one I speak:

I’m too smart for you two to try innuendo with.

But this is a different matter because the relevant structures of (2) and (3) are not the same.

Does this help clarify things?

JE

Thanks for detailed examples.
When you said that you had no problem dropping «me» from (2), did you mean that you would drop it but would understand others keeping it?
Or that you would keep it but would understand others dropping it?

My coffee was too hot to drink it. [Coffee does not drink «it».]
My coffee was too hot to drink. [Someone drinks coffee.]

Pronouns
1. The sign was too far away for Henry to read it.
2. The sign was too far away for Henry to read.

What’s the difference between 1 and 2? Thank you

Pronouns
1. The sign was too far away for Henry to read it.
2. The sign was too far away for Henry to read.

What’s the difference between 1 and 2? Thank you

These mean practically the same thing. (Context could give either version a different meaning, but that would be unusual.)

These mean practically the same thing. (Context could give either version a different meaning, but that would be unusual.)

I see, thanks so much for your explanation, Forero

Hi, Forero and JE

My coffee was too hot for me to drink is a correct sentence.

And my coffee was too hot for me to be drunk is incorrect.

I’m wondering if there’s an example or two that you can come up with the use of ‘ to be + past participe’

For example, ‘the wall is too hard for me to destroy’ is correct and ‘the wall is too hard for me to be destroyed’ is wrong. For this structure, we just can’t use ‘to be + past participle’ at the end? Thanks

For example, ‘the wall is too hard for me to destroy’ is correct and ‘the wall is too hard for me to be destroyed’ is wrong. For this structure, we just can’t use ‘to be + past participle’ at the end? Thanks

The second one doesn’t work because «for me to be destroyed» means that I, not the wall, would be destroyed.

The second one doesn’t work because «for me to be destroyed» means that I, not the wall, would be destroyed.

Ok, thanks.