“Hate” can be followed by either -ing or a to-infinitive, and the difference is usually one of emphasis. The -ing form commonly foregrounds the experience; the to-infinitive can foreground the result or reluctant action.
ReviewedEvidence1 sourceSectionEnglish Usage
Quick answer
Both are standard. “Hate doing” often focuses on dislike of the activity itself; “hate to do” can focus on an unwelcome action, result or situation.
Key details
Confusion Familygrammar-and-usage distinction
Rule Familyverb complement pattern
Termshate doing, hate to do
Further guidance
Infinitive Emphasis
Use hate + to-infinitive when the emphasis is on an unwelcome action, result or situation rather than only the activity as an experience.
Ing Emphasis
Use hate + -ing when the dislike is directed toward the activity or experience itself.
Would Boundary
With would hate, use a to-infinitive rather than an -ing form.
Sources and evidence
Sources are shown with the role they play in this guide. Historical or style-sensitive claims are kept within the evidence boundary described above.
Cambridge documents both admit + -ing and admit to + -ing for acknowledging something. Other passive patterns such as “be admitted to be” are separate constructions.
Both patterns are standard. “Advise waiting” recommends an action generally or in context, while “advise him to wait” names the person who is advised to perform it. A that-clause is another standard option.
When “afford” is followed directly by another verb, standard learner references use a to-infinitive: “afford to do.” An -ing form can appear elsewhere in a sentence, but it is not a like-for-like direct complement after “afford.”
“Agree to do” expresses consent to take an action. An -ing form normally follows a preposition in patterns such as “agree with doing,” which expresses approval rather than the direct promise-to-act construction.
Cambridge documents aim + to-infinitive for intention and aim at for directing effort toward an objective. Do not omit the preposition and present bare “aim doing” as equivalent to “aim to do.”
“Allow” can take an activity as its object, as in “allow smoking,” or a person/thing followed by a to-infinitive, as in “allow visitors to enter.” The patterns answer different structural questions: what is allowed versus who is allowed to do what.
