What is the difference between these two sentences: "Is drinking bad", and "is it bad to drink"

The grammatical explanation is that “drinking” is more like a noun (a *gerund*) and “to drink” is more like a verb (a “to-infinitive”). Both are non-finite forms of the verb “drink.” In “Is drinking bad?” “drinking” is the subject of “is.” “Is it bad to drink?” is an impersonal expression with “it” as a dummy pronoun (a pronoun that doesn’t refer to anything). In meaning, they are more or less equivalent, except that the second can be used in certain scenarios where “it” isn’t just an impersonal dummy pronoun. That is, this is a possible (slightly contrived) conversation: > A: I think the milk has spoiled. > > B: Is it (= the milk) bad to drink? > > *To use the other sentence, an “it” must be added here:* > > B: Is drinking it bad? When used impersonally, where the “it” is just present because the grammar of English requires it, they have the same meaning and refer to the act of drinking generally (or, potentially, specifically to drinking alcohol): > Is it bad to drink here? > > Is drinking here bad?

"To drink," is the infinitive, or unconjugated form of the verb. This means that it indicates the act of drinking, but doesn't specify a subject, object, or tense. Without conjugation, it doesn't describe anything happening, but it does indicate the idea of an action. "Drinking," is the present participle, meaning that the subject of the statement is consuming something liquid. "He/she is drinking some water," means that it is happening concurrently with the statement. It would probably be easier to explain this if I also knew your native tongue, as there are often parallel ideas in other languages too. Edit: Somewhat confusingly, words ending in -ing can also be nouns sometimes, usually describing behaviors. For example, "His drinking is problematic," might suggest that the manner in which the person consumes alcohol is causing issues.

I’ll have a go at the grammar. Both the infinitive here, “to drink” and the gerund, “drinking”, signify that they are referring to the action in the general case. Both lack specificity. They’re too different ways of representing the same thing, and it doesn’t matter which you use.

As a native speaker "drinking" sounds more like a habit, and "to drink" sounds more like a one-time thing. But this is very context-dependent. They're pretty equivalent but "to drink" is a little clumsier.

I am going to go against the group here. First, in the United States, we have had a long history with the Temperance movement. This is a movement that proposes that alcoholic beverages are bad, and should be eliminated. So when someone says "drinking" or "drink", most of the time, unless it is otherwise specified, and it is in the abstract, it is in reference to alcoholic beverages. For example, if I say "This milk - is it bad to drink?" you would understand that I mean this specific milk. However, if you just ask "Is it bad to drink?", I presume you mean "Is it bad to drink (alcoholic beverages)?" And this is where the difference in meaning comes in at. At a surface level, both sentences are the same. However... "Is drinking bad?" is a way of addressing the general question - is drinking alcoholic beverages bad? "Is it bad to drink?" is similar, but it is removing the abstraction from the beverage and placing it on the person who is drinking the beverage. It is the active form of the sentence. And thus, it is pushing more of the blame on the person drinking. It has more of a connotation of "the person drinking is bad", instead of "the drink is bad" in this circumstance. Because of this cultural quirk, if you are not intending to begin a discussion on the morality of alcohol, it is probably best to ask this question differently. "Is this safe to drink?" is much less emotionally charged.

Drinking often has a connotation of consuming alcohol, without being explicitly stated, sometimes also alcoholism. -Why was Damien fired? -He was caught drinking at work. It is dangerous to drive if you've been drinking. His drinking is the real reason their marriage failed.

Bottom line: No difference between the sentences.

Grammatically you’re just changing “drink” from the present participle form to the infinitive form and restructuring the sentence slightly by making the subject the pronoun “it” and denoting its representation of “to drink” later in the sentence so that it works grammatically. Unless “it” in the second sentence were to be understood as referencing some other noun mentioned previously, the sentences semantically have no difference.

I'm not a professional like anyone here. But I just wanna give my two cents. "Is drinking bad" makes me feel like CURRENTLY you are drinking, and you're asking if you should stop. Paradoxically, it also makes it sound like you're going to do it. "Is it bad to drink" sounds more philosophical

I think the correct way of phrasing that question would be, "Is it bad to drink?" And the reasoning has less so to do with the conjugation of the verb and more so to do with the fact that you have this clarifying adjective dangling at the end of Option 1 which makes it seem like an incomplete thought.

They both mean the same thing, I’m not great at gramatical explanations but as a native speaker the first sentence would probably be used more often since it sounds more like a complete sentence and conveys the question more clearly.

I'd say it's basically the same. The first one sounds more natural as a complete question. With the second, I'd expect it to continue with something specific like "Is it bad to drink tea before bed?", but "Is it bad to drink?" is not grammatically wrong either.

I don't think there's a "base" difference. Different people use phrases in different ways. For some, I think the first is more general, and the second more direct. More importantly though, it depends on the context.

The gerund (i.e. "drinking") and the infinitive ("to drink") are often used interchangeably in English. I think this is one of those times. In the past progressive or present progressive tenses you cannot substitute the two. So for example, you can say "I was walking" but not "I was to walk." or "I am enjoying this movie" but not "I am to enjoy this movie." You *have to* use the gerund for past progressive or present progressive. Similarly, in "used to" constructions, it may look like an infinitive (but it's really not) and a gerund cannot be substituted. So you can say "I used to love this movie" but not "I used loving this movie." Now, when the infinitive is used, I think you can pretty much always use either. "I love to bike" = "I love biking." "It is fun to hike" = "hiking is fun." Now, someone may say, "Well, 'is drinking bad' connotes x while 'is it bad to drink' connotes y." And maybe, *maybe*, there are contexts where the two would have a slightly different connotation. But I think the real answer is they mean the same thing.