mjhjmtu

In your first example, there probably isn't an adequate grammatical rule about why. I can tell you the it is unnecessary, and generally you don't want to use more words than necessary to communicate. That probably isn't the answer you want, but you can think of it another way. There is only one subject ("the medicine") in that sentence so you don't need to refer to "the medicine" again.

In your second example, "It's too hard to do alone" is much better than "It's too hard to do it alone." You are saying the same thing in fewer words.

I would actually drop the entire phrase "to afford it" because you're just repeating the same thing twice in the same sentence. Generally, if you can communicate the same idea in fewer words you'll be better off. As a native English speaker, I would say

• The soup was too hot for me.


• The test was too difficult for me.


• The drink was too strong for me.

instead of

• The soup was too hot for me to eat it.


• The test was too difficult for me to pass it.


• The drink was too strong for me to drink it.

because those ideas were already implied. Hope that helps.

As far as I can see, it is grammatical both with and without "it" at the end.

I think I would usually say it with "it", but I'm not certain.

With test question, you need to be clear about what is being tested. And with language learning, that can mean the difference between being grammatically correct and being idiomatic.

My guess is that what is found to be wrong about the inclusion of ‘it’ is probably that it is not idiomatic. Most people in conversation would probably leave out the ‘it’. But the inclusion of the ‘it’ as the object of ‘to afford’ is correct. You can leave out the ‘it’, because of a ‘missing object’ principle, applying to comparative sentences involving excess and deficiency.

The apples are too high (for me) to reach (them) / not ripe enough (for me) to eat (them)...

In your example, as you can see from other answers, some would include the ‘it’, others might cut down to the bare essentials, making “the medicine is too expensive for me”. But it is not a matter of grammar.

Both phrases are absolutely grammatical and fine.

I would only say that the first is maybe a little awkward, because the "it" is redundant and therefore not used like that very often. But it doesn't even sound unnatural, at least not to me.

I would say intuitively that from syntax perspective it depends on how you cut the sentence, and this explains why both versions are acceptable:

With this first cut, the last bracket is an infinitive structure, which requires the it:

[The medicine was too expensive] [for me to afford it]

You could in theory put that last bracket at the beginning of the sentence, where the it cannot be omitted.

With this second cut, the last bracket is a subject complement (a sort of multi-word equivalent of an adjective), which cannot have the it:

[The medicine] [was] [too expensive for me to afford]

In other words the syntax uncertainty is what makes the it optional.

I'd agree with everyone else that it is grammatically correct. The problem is it sounds clumsy because it is redundant. "The medicine was too expensive for me" should be enough. If it's too expensive, it follows that it is unaffordable.

The construct "The noun is too adjective for me to verb" can be used transitively, but the object is very strongly implied as being noun. In most cases where the object isn't noun, some other construct should be used, and in most cases where the object is noun it shouldn't be stated unless there is a reason to state it.

Consider, for example:

• The mice were too fast for me to catch both of them.




• The mice were too fast for me to catch more than two.

In the second construct, the implication that the verb "catch" refers to the mice is so strong that including "of them" would sound unnatural. In the first construct, however, the need for "both" to have a bound object is sufficiently strong that including "of them" would seem more natural than omitting it. An alternative phrasing would be "catch them both".