Can "to-infinitive phrase" be used non-restrictively modifying its preceding noun?

Question

for example,"I soon finished the article, to be published later that day." = "...which would be published later that day."(to be published later that day is modifying "the article")If it can, is there any difference in meaning between with and without that comma?I'll be happy if you provide a reliable source about this grammar topic.( for those who are weak in English grammar terms to know what's the non-restrictive, if a sentence or phrase is set off by two commas modifying its preceding noun, it's called "non-restrictive sentence or phrase", and "restrictive' doesn't require any commas.)

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

The given sentence is technically grammatical, with or without a comma. However, it doesn't sound quite right to native English speaking ears. The problem is with the word "soon." "Soon" should not be used like this. This is a usage problem rather than a strictly grammatical one. Omit "soon" and the sentence is okay, with or without a comma.

CalifJim · Answer

fire1any difference in meaning between with and without that comma?

the article to be published later that day is that article only, as opposed to the other article, the article to be published on another day, or as opposed to the other article, the article not to be published at all, or as opposed to .... In other words the infinitive clause is necessary to the identification of the article in question as that article and no other.

the article, to be published later that day, is that article only which has been referenced earlier in such a way that we all know which article it is already, without having to be told specifically that it is to be published later that day, which means to be published later that day is purely parenthetical information that is not necessary for identifying which article is meant.

fire1( for those who are weak in English grammar terms to know what's the non-restrictive, if a sentence or phrase is set off by two commas modifying its preceding noun, it's called "non-restrictive sentence or phrase", and "restrictive' doesn't require any commas.)

OK, but let me remind you that it's not the commas that determine whether a phrase or clause is restrictive or not. It's the other way around. It's whether it's restrictive or not that determines whether you should use the commas.

fire1a reliable source about this grammar topic

My brain, which has stored in it years of experience.

CJ

BillJ · Answer

[1] I soon finished the article, to be published later that day, on the merits of e-cars.

[2] I soon finished [the article to be published later that day] on the merits of e-cars.

In [1] the commas mark the infinitival clause as a supplement, a loosely attached expression giving supplementary, non-integrated content. By virtue of not being integrated into the syntactic structure, supplements are necessarily non-restrictive. They don't function as modifiers; rather, they have a sematic 'anchor' that they relate to. In [1] the anchor is "the article".

Note also that supplements are not only set off in writing by punctuation, but are also marked off in speech by a slight pause.

In [2], by contrast, the infinitival clause is tightly integrated into the structure of the bracketed NP, where it functions as complement of the noun "article". It is semantically restrictive in that it distinguishes the article you finished as being the one to be published later that day, not some other article

Can "to-infinitive phrase" be used non-restrictively modifying its preceding noun?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions