Search results for 'tag:Noun phrases tag:Infinitive clauses' matching tags 'Noun phrases' and 'Infinitive clauses'

Re: infinitive

Velimir — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT

Hello everybody,

Taka, IÂ mustÂ admitÂ thatÂ I don't feel any adjectival flavor in that clause,only adverbial flavor.The clause:

"to alter or emphasize what we say and do"

is an adverbial(purpose)clause.

In the sentence:

I learned a good way to ensure the absence of typing mistakes.

the infinitive clause is part of the noun phrase with "way" as a head of the phrase.It can be replaced with a relative(adjectival)clause begining with "which ensures.."

As to the sentence which Hoa Thai has given as an example of the adjectival infinitive clause:

I need a nurse to care for my mom

It doesn't seem that "to care for my mom" qualify,describe,specify or tells about "nurse", it rather answers the question: "Why do you need a nurse",and therefore acts adverbialy in the clause structure.Although some similar situation maybe would justifyÂ the interpretation of the infinitive clause as part of the noun phrase.

Best regards

Re: infinitive

Marius Hancu — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:28:07 GMT

---------
infinitive clause: a type of non-finite clause,
with the verb in the infinitive. Infinitive clauses may or may not
contain the infinitive marker to. A subject may or may not be present;
the subject of an infinitive clause may be realized as a noun phrase
or as a prepositional phrase with for. E.g.: I want you to understand
this. They managed to solve the problem. To err is human. It would be
highly unusual for Peter to admit his mistake. An infinitive clause
may serve a nominal function (as in the examples above), an adjectival
function (This is a drug to betaken at bedtime), or an adverbial
function (Read on to find out more about how the programme works)

http://www.novalearn.com/grammar-glossary/infinitive-clause.htm
-------
Read on to find out more about how the programme works.
means
Read on [in order to] to find out more about how the programme works.
very similar, IMO, to what is present in the original posting:
... would send its leading humorists [in order to] represent it

Also, see:
Post:206122

Re: To + verb ing but why here ?

paco2004 — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:06:13 GMT

Hello Guys

Thought Professor KM's replies are superb, I'd like to add two things.

(1) I answered to MaX as above because MaX asked why it is a gerund. However, I think we might say also "He welcomed their commitment to improve skills". In this case we can parse it as "He welcomed (their commitment) [= DO] (to improve skills) [Adv]". That is, the infinitive clause works as a purpose adverbial. On the other hand, the original sentence is "He welcomed (their commitment to improving skills) [= DO]. That is, "their commitment to improving skills" as a whole works as a noun phrase. Because of the different structures, the two sentences have different meanings.

(2) "X's commitment to Y (a noun)" is a nominalized form of a sentence "X commits oneself to Y". Because the verb "commit" is followed by a "to + a noun" phrase, the de-verbal noun "commitment" also takes a "to + a noun" phrase as its complement (post-modifier). We can make similar analyses to "dedication to a noun", "devotion to a noun", etc..

paco

Re: Is anything wrong with this sentence?

CalifJim — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:36:28 GMT

deleted by an obligatory deletion transform.
Will this work on the clutter in my living room?

Don't we all wish!!! LOL

Part of the problem, as Paco has aptly observed, is the problem of finding the missing (deleted) subject of a dependent clause, the infinitive clause "to be ... cleverer ..." in this case.

In less complex situations, finding such a subject is child's play:

"Harry wants to marry Louise."
comes from
"*Harry wants Harry to marry Louise."
The subject of the infinitive in the deep structure is coreferential with the subject of the main clause. Therefore it is obligatory to delete it in the surface structure.

But the 'computer's-capacity' sentence is a "doozie" because a couple of other factors compound the problem.

If we express the whole sentence as a noun phrase: "Harry's desire to marry Louise"
the subject of the infinitive becomes a bit more elusive. Now the verb "want" is expressed as the noun "desire", and everything else has to shift accordingly: The subject noun "Harry" now becomes a possessive "Harry's", and the result is a possible misinterpretation that the desire may end up marrying Louise, not Harry! By "demoting" a verb "want"="desire" to a noun "desire", we have to "demote" the noun "Harry" to an 'adjective' "Harry's". To recover the real subject of "to marry Louise", we have to reverse the process, and then we see that "Harry" is the subject of that infinitive.

To compound the difficulty further, there are only a limited number of abstract nouns that can occur in the appositive structures I discussed in a previous post. A concrete noun simply won't do: "*Harry's kitchen to marry Louise" (on the relevant reading). The noun in question, whether "capacity", "desire", or whatever, must be deverbal in some way. ("capacity" is the deverbal form of the modal "can" -- obliquely, not directly, of course.)

So, all in all, there are several different grammatical phenomena working together here to undermine our ability to remain sane! (Whoops! There's another! 'our ability to remain sane': What is the subject of "to remain sane"??? Deleted "we"! -- And again the deverbal is modal in nature!)

Have a nice day, everyone. Hope this helped.

CJ

Re: Learn to do

paco2004 — Sun, 08 May 2005 22:03:32 GMT

Hello Taka

I know you get unpleasant with this, but please allow me to put my two cents on your question.

"He learned to smoke"
If we compare this with "He learned English", we see "to smoke" here is working as a noun phrase. If we negate the action "smoke", we get a sub-surface collocation like "He learned to not smoke". But this one is not grammatical, and so we should change it into "He learned not to smoke". Here we should remind "He learned not to smoke" is not equal to "He didn't learn to smoke".

"He came here to play"
We have to note that "to play" here is working as a purpose adverb phrase. If we negate the purpose adverbial "to play", we get : "He came here not to play". However, it is common in English to raise negation of a purpose adverbial to that of the whole sentence. Hence "He didn't come here to play" is also possible.

"He came to be wise"
As noted by MrP, we can take this verb "come" as "become", the sense that is typically exemplified by the phrase "My dream came true". And we see the infinitival phrase "to be wise" is working as a subject complement. If you negate "wise" in the infinitival phrase, you would get "He came to be unwise", and if you negate the whole sentence, you'll get "He didn't come to be wise".

"He learned to be wise".
This "to be wise" may be taken either as a purpose adverbial (i.e, "He learned for becoming wise") or a resultant complement (i.e, "He learned and became wise"). The negation of "wise" would yield "He learned to be unwise", which to my thought would be commonly interpreted as "He learned but remained unwise". "He learned not to be wise" would be also possible and in this case too we could take the infinitive as a resultant complement (i.e, "He learned not to be wise but to be sly"). On the other hand, "He didn't learn to be wise" sounds somehow weird, though "He didn't learn much enough to be wise" seems natural.

What does this messy matter tell us? I think it tells us that, as for licensing of negative infinitive clauses, we cannot find any good rule independent from the context.

It's just my humble opinion and no reply is needed.

paco

Re: Infinitive clause

paco2004 — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:12:55 GMT

Jamal

I'd like to add something I know about your question.

Some linguists would analyze the syntax of your sentence the way as this;
My hunger caused something (=a clause or noun phrase).
My hunger caused [me to make a sandwich]. (an infinitive clause)
= My hunger caused [(the fact) that I made a sandwich]. (a finite clause)

paco

Re: Sinatra song

paco2004 — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:47:14 GMT

Hello CJ again, Thank you for the detailed explanation.

I'll review what you've taught me. "The thief would be nice to catch" sounds best fit the review, so please allow me to use it.
#1 (IC)[ to catch the thief] would be nice.
Here PRO means some person(s) and IC means an infinitive clause. Also denotes an implicit phrase.
#2 (It) would be nice (IC)[ to catch the thief].
Raise the object of the verb 'catch' in the infinitive clause to the position of the subject in the main clause, and then
#3 The thief would be nice (IC)[ to catch (trace)].
The IC appears, by the transformation, to get changed from a noun phrase to a complement (or adverbial adjunct phrase) of 'nice'.

For me, it takes a lot of brain works to find the sense of #1 in the form of #3. But it is English and so I'll try to understand it as it is.

paco

Re: Phrases

miriam — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 18:34:14 GMT

Hi, Malory.

1. "Preserving rare and valuable books and documents is one of the challenges FACING THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS."
The construction in capital letters is a participial clause (present participial); it functions as post modifier of "challenges". It is what's also called a "reduced relative clause"; the complete clause would be "... the challenges (that are facing the library of Congress)". There, you have a relative pronoun introducing the clause, and also a conjugated verb (are facing).
"Preserving rare and valuable books" is a gerundial clause, acting as subject of the sentence.

2. "Refreshed by the cool breeze, I didn't object to GOING BACK TO WORK."
Here, you have (in capitals) a gerundial clause acting as direct object of the main verb.
"Refreshed by the cool breeze" is a past participial clause.

3. "The United States, a true 'melting pot', has been greatly enriched BY MANY DIVERSE CULTURES."
"by many diverse cultures" is a prepositional phrase acting as agent (the sentence has a verb in the passive voice).
"a true 'melting pot'" is a noun phrase acting as apposition of 'the United States'.

There aren't any examples of infinitive clauses in these sentences.

Miriam.