I was forbidden to make such requests

Question

I was forbidden to make such requests.

I feel that this is not English. But how can I express that somebody said that I am not authorized for this action?

I was forbidden to... could be used, but it sounds too formal or strong. I was not allowed to..., I was not permitted to..., I didn't have permission to..., (S)he or They specifically asked me not to... There could be more. — , Feb 09 '16 at 12:06
That is certainly English. The register is not casual, on the formal side. We tend not to use the word "forbidden" in everyday contexts. It often appears in legal and religious contexts, or when people are "laying down the law", e.g. parents telling kids what they cannot do, but in an especially stern manner. — TimR, Feb 09 '16 at 12:09
"Forbidden" normally takes the preposition "from", not "to", which may also contribute why the sentence seems off. Try I was forbidden from making such requests. — Harrison Paine, Feb 09 '16 at 16:09
Intiutively, I was forbidden to make such requests seems very awkward, due to a vague sense that there is a lack of agreement that's a bit difficult to quantify -- yet, there are two variants, either I was forbidden to make such a request (referring to a singular or specific request) or I was forbidden from making such requests (referring to multiple or perhaps an indeterminate number of requests of a certain class), both of which seem quite natural and correct to me. — Michael - sqlbot, Feb 09 '16 at 20:32
@Michael: I suspect the "vague sense of lack of agreement" comes from the fact that, for almost all possibly applicable s, a sentence like "I was to make such requests." would have a more or less affirmative sense, i.e. implying that the speaker was commanded, encouraged or at the very least able to make the requests. On the other hand, "I was from making such requests." generally carries a negative connotation (or describes a state resulting from the action; those are really two different constructions that just happen to look alike). — Ilmari Karonen, Feb 10 '16 at 08:05
@Adam: It's completely wrong to say "F from + gerund" is more common (see this chart, showing that the gerund-based usage is almost non-existent compared to the standard infinitive). And unless I'm missing something, "F to + noun" can't occur, because it's inherently ungrammatical. — FumbleFingers, Feb 10 '16 at 12:58
For humorous, archaic, or churchy contexts, consider using the obsolete forboden: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forboden — zkurtz, Feb 10 '16 at 17:31
@Fumblefingers Everything between the word "acceptable" and the word "ski" in my comment above is perplexingly wrong. I took a look at ngrams before I wrote it, and observed something similar to what you observed: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=forbidden+to%2Cforbidden+from&year_start=1800&year_end=2013&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cforbidden%20from%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cforbidden%20to%3B%2Cc0) I don't know how managed to mangle the rest of the comment so badly. I am deleting it. Nice catch. — Adam, Feb 10 '16 at 19:03
@zkurtz: Why stop there? Inter alia, OED lists forbad, forbade, forbidden, forbéodan, forbéada, forbeoden, forbede, forbedyn, forbedd, forbeed, forbidde, forbide, forbyde, forbeid, forbidd, forbid, forbéad, forbead, forbæd, forbet(t), forbed(e), forbode, forbaad, forbadde, forbed, forbeed, forbat, forbod(de), forbedde, forbedid, forbedd... — FumbleFingers, Feb 10 '16 at 19:09

Peter · Accepted Answer · 2016-02-10T05:49:17.433

18

Your sentence

I was forbidden to make such requests.
I was forbidden from making such requests

is correct and understandable that someone has told you not not make requests
Another way to say this is

I am not allowed to make such requests
I was told not to make such requests

If you are within a structure where you need to have a certain level of clearance

I am not authorised to
I don't have permission to

for explanation you could use

I am not able to make such requests because...

edited Feb 10 '16 at 05:49

answered Feb 09 '16 at 12:12

Peter

66,233
6
65
125

That is exact - somebody told me that I shall not do it. – Leos Literak Feb 09 '16 at 17:39
2

I would also change it slightly to say "I was forbidden from making such requests" – CobaltHex Feb 10 '16 at 05:35
1

"It is forbidden to make such requests" is grammatically correct, for "I", see CobaltHex's comment. – AndyT Feb 10 '16 at 15:46

FumbleFingers · Answer 2 · 2016-02-10T14:30:01.230

5

As has been pointed out, I was forbidden to [do it] is perfectly "valid" English where the meaning can easily be established from any dictionary. But in the context of learning "normal" use of English, no-one has mentioned the critical issue of the "tense switch" involved in paraphrasing to I am not allowed to do it.

Google Books has just 3 instances of I was forbidden to tell you, and if you follow that link you'll see they all occur in contexts where the speaker is no longer thus constrained (he's either just told the other person whatever it was he couldn't say before, or he's just about to).

On the other hand there are an estimated 650 instances of I am forbidden to tell you. The reason for using present tense is that the whole point of making the statement is to say something about the current situation. Technically speaking, forbidden is a "past tense" form, but in practice it's just being used as a Participle Adjective, with no significant allusion to an "action" that happened in the past.

It might be useful to consider this "time-based" aspect of the usage in the context of an irate father whose teenage daughter just came home really late...

1: You are forbidden to stay out after midnight unless you ask permission!

Note that although both father and daughter probably know exactly what the above means in context, we can't tell from the actual words whether the father is (1) imposing a new constraint on his daughter, or (2) reminding her of an existing rule.

In principle he could have unambiguously forced the second meaning with You were forbidden..., but in practice this would be unlikely. You'd normally only explicitly locate the "act of forbidding" in the past in contexts where the consequences of that act also lie in the past (i.e. - there's something that was forbidden in the past, but isn't now).

EDIT: Comments to both the question and this answer suggest it's worth making a couple more points about verb forms here. First, this "usage note" from Collins...

Traditionally, it has been considered more correct to talk about forbidding someone to do something, rather than forbidding someone from doing something. Recently, however, the from option has become generally more acceptable, so that he was forbidden to come in and he was forbidden from coming in may both now be considered correct.

But note that the gerund usage is still far less common than the infinitive, and obviously that Collins usage note is only there because some people still need convincing that the gerund is "valid" at all.

Second, you can of course cast the main verb in the perfect (I have been forbidden to tell you, She had been forbidden from staying out late). I don't think there's usually any special reason to use this relatively uncommon form, but arguably it can emphasize the prior imposition of a restriction rather than the implied current status of being restricted.

Because of that "backshifting" of focus, one might reasonably argue a potential difference of nuance between, for example,...

2: Those who are forbidden to stay must leave now
3: Those who have been forbidden to stay must leave now

...where we can contrast scenario A (it was announced earlier that no-one under 18 can stay late) with scenario B (each person was interviewed earlier, and told whether they could stay or not). Although in both scenarios #2 above is actually more likely, #3 is less unlikely in scenario B.

edited Feb 10 '16 at 14:30

answered Feb 09 '16 at 17:27

FumbleFingers

70,966
4
97
196

If it happened in past and it is still valid, how shall I express it? – Leos Literak Feb 09 '16 at 17:36
2

@Leos Literak: Hmm. Obviously I haven't explained things as well as I intended. If the prohibition is "still valid" you should almost always say I am* forbidden, not I was forbidden. Normal English doesn't naturally support distinguishing between prohibitions that are currently being imposed* and those which were imposed in the past (but still in force) when using *forbidden* as a "participle adjective". – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 17:44
The word forbidden is so rarely used that your Google Books search could be meaningless. 3 to 650 doesn't seem to show big difference (I have not read all the hits). The word itself is archaic and it is not broadly used unless in legal context. I believe that's why we don't have many hits on Google Books search. – Feb 09 '16 at 17:55
2

@Rathony: I'm afraid I can't agree with you there. Arguably *forbidden* is slightly less common today than a century or two ago, but imho it's not even "dated", let alone "archaic". And as to whether comparing 3 hits to 650 in Google Books "shows a big difference" or not, all I can say is do the math (figuratively or arithmetically; the answer will be the same! :) – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 18:04
... Incidentally, I think it's unlikely forbidden would ever have occured often in legal documents. But the reasons for that are subtle, and too much for me to work through here. – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 18:06
@FumbleFingers Sorry, but the word forbidden is not for a day-to-day usage and if you see the Ngram Viewer for forbidden to drive, you will notice that it is used in legal context. Now, the Original Poster's question is "I was forbidden to make such requests." Do you think the word is appropriate even when it is rephrased to "I am forbidden to make..." In what context? – Feb 09 '16 at 18:14
An authority would say "You were forbidden to do X", while X is still forbidden, if they caught you breaking the rule. In this case, past tense is used because the rule was made in the past, and that's relevant because it means you did something you knew you weren't allowed to do. – zwol Feb 09 '16 at 18:27
1

@Rathony: I intend no disrespect, but you must surely accept it's unlikely your position here will stand up against mine, given I'm a native speaker and you're not. Note that a "popular summary" of a legal position (in a newspaper article, or layman's guide, for example) might well include the words forbidden to [drive, or whatever], but "legal documents" (your driving license, the relevant Act of Parliament, etc.) normally wouldn't. It's just not "legalese". – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 18:29
1

@zwol: I can only repeat what I just commented to OP above. An authority would not normally say You were forbidden to do X if they caught you doing it. They'd nearly always say You are* forbidden to do it* unless there was some unusual contextual reason why they specifically wanted to make the "offender" think back to the specific point in past time where they were told what they weren't allowed to do. – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 18:36
@FumbleFingers My native-speaker intuition is exactly the opposite: were is more natural to me in the context of being caught breaking an existing prohibition. "You are forbidden" sounds like a performative issuing a new prohibition, I wouldn't say it otherwise. – zwol Feb 09 '16 at 18:40
1

@zwol: Perhaps this is a matter of us both having different contexts in mind. I'm thinking of, say, a traffic cop finding a learner driver on a motorway (in Britain, you can't drive on the motorway until after you've passed your test). Perhaps you're thinking of a parent referring back to the fact that he forbade his son from borrowing the car last night. (Now there's a relatively uncommon/dated usage of the verb *to forbid!* :) – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 18:53
1

This native US speaker hears and uses forbidden frequently. "After the big riot last year, it was forbidden for fraternities to burn couches. I wanted to skip rocks across the pool, but it turns out that is forbidden. Performers are no longer forbidden from drinking alcohol onstage in Washington State." As far as tense,I would expect present tense to be used in a formal written law, and past tense to be used in a heated argument between a parent and child: "I expressly told you that you were forbidden to adopt any more orphaned tree sloths, and I just found two in your room." – Adam Feb 09 '16 at 18:56
1

@Adam: The point about your "heated argument" example isn't really that it's "less formal". It's that the speaker specifically wants to remind the errant child about a time in the past when he was expressly told* what he wasn't allowed to do. And note your tense switch between the fraternities* and rock-skipping examples. In the first, past tense reflects the fact that the "act of forbidding" is significant (in particular, that it occurred at a specific time). In the second, it's irrelevant when and how it was forbidden - all that matters is the prohibition still applies now. – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 19:15
1

@FumbleFingers Good clarification. I didn't mean to suggest that the present couldn't be used between parent and child - more that it would be weird in a formal law, where what matters is the current legal condition. For the fraternities, I wrote it with the act of forbidding being significant, but could have said "Since last year, it has been forbidden for..." which would emphasize the onerous oversight under which the fraternities must live, or "It is forbidden..." which emphasizes the current state of affairs. All meaningful, but I'd expect the Univ bylaws to use "It is forbidden..." – Adam Feb 09 '16 at 19:52
2

@Adam: I think we're on the same page here. I must admit it's only just occurred to me OP might actually be asking whether forbidden can validly be used as an antonym of allowed. I just thought it was odd that both OP and all existing comments / answers transparently switched to present tense for the latter, bearing in mind that nobody would be likely to say I was* not allowed to...* in a context where it's currently relevant that the prohibition *still applies*. – FumbleFingers Feb 09 '16 at 21:03
1

I think this answer would benefit from some discussion of the perfect aspect ("I have been forbidden...") and how it relates to simple past tense. While this is mentioned in the comments, it should appear in the answer as well. – Kevin Feb 10 '16 at 04:40
@Kevin: I've tried. Is there anything significant still left out? – FumbleFingers Feb 10 '16 at 14:32

Adam · Answer 3 · 2016-02-09T20:28:23.907

I could be that your sentence is perfectly fine. It depends on the context. A few examples of similar statements in context.:

I used to call her every night, asking her to go to dinner and talk things over, but then my ex-wife took out a restraining order and I was forbidden to make such requests.

The speaker is capable of making the request, and has the authority, but has been legally prohibited.

I used to work for a huge cosmetic surgery company. My friends used to ask me to search for names of celebrities in the company database, but I was not authorized to make such requests.

The system was set up so that this speaker could not even attempt to make the request. Unlike the first example, they can't make the request, even if they wanted to.

I used to be the pool guy for Frank Sinatra. My aunt was always giving me tchotchkes and I would have the Chairman sign them. She resold them at flea markets. I thought it was ok, but apparently Frank didn't like it and one day I was asked not to make such requests.

The speaker is legally allowed to make the request, and is capable of doing so, but is annoying someone who therefore asked him to stop. No force or legal compulsion, but probably a good idea if he wants to keep his job.

score 2 · Answer 4 · answered Feb 09 '16 at 14:14

2

I was forbidden to make such requests

is certainly English.

Perhaps you want to say

I'm not authorized to make such requests.

answered Feb 09 '16 at 14:14

Jim Reynolds

9,997
23
43

score 2 · Answer 5 · answered Feb 09 '16 at 22:03

"I was forbidden to make such requests. ". You would be more likely to hear "I am not allowed to make such requests". There is a difference in meaning. Let's say nobody in a company is allowed to make such requests. Nobody is specifically told, it's just a general rule. But there is Joe, who doesn't follow the rules. Until someone has enough of Joe and tells him that if he doesn't stop making such requests, his job is in danger.

In that situation, Joe might say "I was forbidden to make such requests". It is stronger than "I am not allowed", it also implies that Joe was specifically and personally told not to make such requests, and not just as part of a group.

I was forbidden to make such requests

5 Answers5