She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.

Question

Hello.Is the sentence below (taken from my program to learn English) correct? Especially the end?She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.Normally I would express this by:She was the only mourner at the funeral that didn't cry.

GPY · Accepted Answer

Both sentences are correct. The first one is more elegant, in my opinion.

Reegis · Answer

Does this linguistic structure has some name? Is it "to be to do something"?

Similar sentences that I saw before are the following:

You are to stay here until I am back.
The wedding is to take place in the garden.
They were to open the new shopping center last month.

But according to my knowledge they mean something different - they mean that somebody is (or was) supposed to do something, or is told what to do, or that something has been arranged. My interpretation of this sentence:
She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.
Was as follows:
She was the only mourner at the funeral that didn't cry.
So I guess that the original sentence is something different than 'to be to do something' structure.

What am I missing here?

GPY · Answer

Your "to be to do something" pattern would make "she was not to cry". This would mean, as you say, that she was not supposed/allowed to cry, or would have a future-in-the-past sense. One key difference between this and your original sentence is the insertion of the complement "mourner". My initial thought was that "not to cry" in the original sentence was an adjectival infinitive phrase modifying "mourner", as in "a man to take on the world" or "a sight not to be missed". However, I'm now having some doubts about this. For one thing, "a mourner not to cry" hardly seems to stand alone like other examples of this pattern do. The word "only" (or some other modifier) seems important; for example, "the only/one/sole/first mourner not to cry".

Reegis · Answer

GPYMy initial thought was that "not to cry" in the original sentence was an adjectival infinitive phrase modifying "mourner", as in "a man to take on the world" or "a sight not to be missed".

I must say this is the first time I read 'adjectival infinitive phrase'

But your examples describe it pretty well - it contains the infinitive and describes something in a way the adjective does.
"a sight not to be missed" - I guess this is something that should/must be seen, a must-see. If yes, I am not certain about this interpretation too.

I googled it a little bit more and found this:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/be-to-do-something

The fifth usage is this:
"used about someone or something in the past to say what would happen at a later time:
The boy who was to become king."

Do you think this could be the possible interpretation? Namely that the narrator knows beforehand that she is not going to cry at the funeral (maybe you meant this interpretation when saying 'or would have a future-in-the-past sense').

GPY · Answer

ReegisDo you think this could be the possible interpretation? Namely that the narrator knows beforehand that she is not going to cry at the funeral

No. "The boy who was to become king" is indeed an example of the future-in-the-past sense that I mentioned, but this is the "to be to do something" pattern again. The "funeral" sentence does not use that pattern. Note that in "The boy who was to become king" there is no word corresponding in function to "mourner".

Reegis · Answer

GPYNote that in "The boy who was to become king" there is no word corresponding in function to "mourner".

Yes, of course I am aware of this difference, but I am just wondering how much it matters. For example, if we try to imitate a bit the sentence 'The boy who was to become king':

1a) The boy who was to become king.
1b) The only son of Gregory and Mary who was to become king.

Do you think that 1b is still an example of the future-in-the-past sense? I am no native speaker, so I don't trust my intuition, but I would hazard a guess that its overtone is similar to 1a.

If yes, maybe by analogy we could say:
2a) She was not to cry.
2b) She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.

Perhaps someone else has an opinion on this matter? I got really curious about this.

CalifJim · Answer

ReegisIs the sentence below (taken from my program to learn English) correct? Especially the end?She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.

Yes, it's fine. "first", "second", ..., "last", and "only", can trigger an infinitive clause which modifies as a relative clause might do.

She was the only contestant to reach the finish line.
The Greeks were the first civilization to experiment with democracy.
Ursula was the last in town to know that her husband had been unfaithful.

CJ

Reegis · Answer

CalifJimShe was the only contestant to reach the finish line.The Greeks were the first civilization to experiment with democracy.Ursula was the last in town to know that her husband had been unfaithful.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly - your examples and my original sentence mean this "used about someone or something in the past to say what would happen at a later time"?

So, I was wrong when I wrote in my first post that I would rewrite the sentence as:
She was the only mourner at the funeral that didn't cry.
(which means that we are telling the story from the perspective of the later point in time)

Rather I should have written:
She was the only mourner at the funeral that wouldn't cry.
Is this a closer translation?

CalifJim · Answer

ReegisLet me make sure I understand you correctly - your examples and my original sentence mean this "used about someone or something in the past to say what would happen at a later time"?

I'm lost. Where did you get that from?

ReegisSo, I was wrong when I wrote in my first post that I would rewrite the sentence as:She was the only mourner at the funeral that didn't cry.

No. You were not wrong. That is exactly what I said, but in different words. An infinitive construction may replace a relative clause when certain words like "first" and "only" are used. This is unrelated to the idiom is to.

ReegisRather I should have written:She was the only mourner at the funeral that wouldn't cry.Is this a closer translation?

No. It's worse.
_____________

Whatever you're going on about with "in the past" and "at a later time" must be more related to your discussion with GPY. I haven't read all that (some but not all), and I'm just answering your original question afresh.

CJ

Reegis · Answer

I'm sorry, I thought that you had alluded to my conversation with GPY and I must have confused everything.
Now it dawned on me that a relative clause is for example 'that didn't cry' - is it right? I am not too familiar with linguistic terms

So, just to double-check, both sentences below have the same meaning:
1a) She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.
1b) She was the only mourner at the funeral that didn't cry.

And your examples also can/should be interpreted this way, namely:
2a) She was the only contestant to reach the finish line.
2b) She was the only contestant that reached the finish line.
3a) The Greeks were the first civilization to experiment with democracy.
3b) The Greeks were the first civilization that experimented with democracy.
4a) Ursula was the last in town to know that her husband had been unfaithful.
4b) Ursula was the last in town that knew that her husband had been unfaithful.

And all of the above has nothing to do with any of these http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/be-to-do-something five meanings of "to be to do something".

She was the only mourner at the funeral not to cry.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions