Learn English – Can we have a noun after “being able to”

grammaticalityphrases

Currently reading "Taiwan's brain drain prompts worries," by Austin Ramzy from International New York Times (January 14, 2016), I came across the following sentence:

but I do not see the D.P.P. being able to, or promoting, a radical overhaul of the economy.

My instinct says it means, "but I do not see the D.P.P. being able to promote a radical overhaul of the economy nor actually promoting it."

However, since "or promoting" is inserted–and separated by a set of commas–shouldn't it be grammatically correct even after it's removed?

But then,"I do not see the D.P.P. being able to a radical overhaul of the economy" doesn't make grammatical sense to me. I've never seen a noun or noun phrase after "able to."

Best Answer

I agree that your final interpretation (which would be correct from the grammar used) doesn't make any sense.

In addition to being grammatically poor, I think the original sentence is also ambiguous. My initial interpretation was like this:

I do not see the D.P.P. being able to radically overhaul the economy, nor do I see them promoting a radical overhaul of the economy.

But your interpretation is also valid, given the poor way it is presented. The correct way to express that interpretation would be:

I do not see the D.P.P. being able to promote, or promoting a radical overhaul of the economy.

However, this is confusing because if they are unable, how could they promote it? Perhaps the author means:

I do not see the D.P.P. being able to promote a radical overhaul of the economy, and even if they were able to, I do not see them doing it.

Anyway, the answer to the title of your question is no. You can't formally put a noun after "being able to", you should put an action.

Related Topic