Help me understand "Be plus To"

Question

Hi,I think the sentence below is a shortened form of:She gestured toward what was going to become my regular seat. OrShe gestured toward what was supposed to become my regular seat.She gestured toward what was to become my regular seat. And my question is, when is it acceptable to use a shortened form like this, and what is the difference?Also, the one in the sentence below is the same kind of "to"?Her people undoubtedly drank from clay jugs and hollered for Paw when the vittles were ready - so who was she to advise me on anything?Thank you,M

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

She gestured toward what was to become my regular seat.

'To be to' is not a shortened form; it is a distinct and rather formal future form. It is used in particularly in journalism, because it is concise: Obama to meet Dalai Lama. In your example. 'Was to' is a future-in-the-past form. It became her regular seat in the past, but her gesture was farther in the past, so it had not yet become her seat at that time.

so who was she to advise me on anything?

This is different, and not an easy structure to describe. 'Who was she?' is the matrix clause. 'To advise me on anything' seems to be an adverbial or complement. It can be rephrased as 'So who was she [= why was she such an important/knowledgeable person] that she could advise me on anything?'

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Hi, thank you for the reply.

I couldn't be sure about the explanation on my second question.

I thought this "to" is one of this kind: used after the verb ‘be’ to give an order or to state arrangements for the future:

- You are to wait here until I return.

- They are to be married on May 25th.

To be clearer I paste a longer version from the book. (FYI, the main character has a lisp problem and the woman is a speech therapist.)

The woman spoke with a heavy western North Carolina accent, which I used to discredit her authority. Here was a person for whom the word pen had two syllables. Her people undoubtedly drank from clay jugs and hollered for Paw when the vittles were ready - so who was she to advise me on anything?

So my understanding of the sentence is like (not rephrasing), Who does she think she is? Why the heck is she going to advise me on pronunciation?

Or if I have to rephrase, "So who is it that is going to advise me on anything?"

Am I wrong?

Thank you for you help.

M

Mister Micawber · Answer

Your rephrasings are accurate as to meaning, but their infinitives are not equivalent to the infinitive in the original, and it is not of the 'to be to' variety; 'is' ('who is she') is not connected to 'to' ('to advise').

However, I am unable to parse the original any better than I did in my first post.

Mitsuo23 · Answer

It seems I should take some time and consult books. I don't think I fully understood the structure..

But thank you again for taking your time.

M

Mitsuo23 · Answer

I'm sorry for being persistant here, but a realization came down on me.

I thnk these are the same kind of to:

an attempt "to escape."

so who was she "to advise me on anything"?

I think both "to"s are here to complete its meanings.

Please don't bother, Yes or NO answer would be appreciated.

M

Mister Micawber · Answer

an attempt to escape -- Here, 'to escape' is merely a complement to 'attempt'

so who was she to advise me on anything? -- Is this 'to...' a complement to 'she'? I don't think so. But, as I said, I cannot find the structure in my Big Grammar Book. The best I can do is:

So who was she to advise me on anything? = So who was she that she should advise me on anything?

Let me direct some other mods to this thread.

Mitsuo23 · Answer

So I failed again.. I should take some time.

Thank you,

M

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23I think the sentence below is a shortened form of:

She gestured toward what was going to become my regular seat. Or

She gestured toward what was supposed to become my regular seat.

She gestured toward what was to become my regular seat.

And my question is, when is it acceptable to use a shortened form like this, and what is the difference?

It's not really a shortened form, or at least that's not a very good way to think of it. It's better to say that the is to construction indicates futurity. It is a very limited idiom, somewhat like a modal. You can't conjugate it like a regular verb, so there is no to be to or being to or have been to. There is only is to, are to, was to, and were to.

You can, however, paraphrase it by adding 'going' or 'supposed', or perhaps in other ways that approximate the idea of futurity. In the case of this example I would choose 'going': ... what was (going) to become my regular seat. Even so, this is just an approximation. was to become seems a more definite and stronger expression (to my ear) than was going to become.

__________________

mitsuwao23
Also, the one in the sentence below is the same kind of "to"?

Her people undoubtedly drank from clay jugs and hollered for Paw when the vittles were ready - so who was she to advise me on anything?

The 'to' by itself is the same, of course, because in the example at the head of this post it is an infinitival particle, and in this example here it is also an infinitival particle (rather than a preposition). But I think you are more interested in knowing if the combination of was and to in this example conveys the same meaning as was to in the example above. The answer is "No".

The idiom in was to become and the idiom in Who was she to advise ...? are two different idioms. Note that was and to are not next to each other in the second one. This second idiom has a slightly different structure. It is always in question form, like this:

Who [is/are/was/were] (someone) + infinitive ...?

___

The meaning is

What [right / authority] [does / do / did] (someone) have + infinitive ...?

___

The question is rhetorical, and the answer is always "None", so that the meaning can be rephrased as

(Someone) has no [right / authority] + infinitive ....

___

Here are examples:

Who is he to complain? (What right does he have to complain? ~ He has no right to complain.)
Who is she to say no? (What right does she have to say no? ~ She has no right to say no.)
Who is he to tell us to do anything? (And so on.)
Who is he to claim paternity rights now?
Who is he to ask about how much she spends?

Who is he to tell us that the assembly should be dissolved?
Who is she to tell me I can't know my husband's medical status?
Who is she to tell me when and where I can speak my language?

It is nearly hopeless to try to make this pattern fit into any standard grammatical analysis. It just has to be learned as an unusual one-of-a-kind structure.

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

beeeautiful as always. no wonder left behind you.[

]

Thank you, CJ, and Mister Micawber too for directintg him to this thread.

M

Help me understand "Be plus To"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions