0
Maverick88 Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
To
"Ex-Presidents Bush and Clinton to Lead Fund-Raising Push "
What does "to" means here and generally?
What does "to" means here and generally?
Top answer
The "to" of the infinitive (which is what we have here) has no meaning of its own. It is simply there to make the infinitive form of the verb ("lead" in this case). This is a headline, and as such it has been shortened by omitting the verb "to be".
- The "to" of the infinitive (which is what we have here) has no meaning of its own.
- It is simply there to make the infinitive form of the verb ("lead" in this case).
- This is a headline, and as such it has been shortened by omitting the verb "to be".
- The full form is "Ex-Presidents Bush and Clinton are to lead a fund-raising push".
- This is a case of "to be" + infinitive indicating expectation.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
The "to" of the infinitive (which is what we have here) has no meaning of its own. It is simply there to make the infinitive form of the verb ("lead" in this case).
This is a headline, and as such it has been shortened by omitting the verb "to be". The full form is "Ex-Presidents Bush and Clinton are to lead a fund-raising push". This is a case of "to be" + infinitive indicating expe
This is a headline, and as such it has been shortened by omitting the verb "to be". The full form is "Ex-Presidents Bush and Clinton are to lead a fund-raising push". This is a case of "to be" + infinitive indicating expe
00
I wonder if the journalistic form using "to" here is not unique to journalism - a contraction of "are going to". If an ordinary person says "Bush and Clinton are to lead a fund raising push", it means that they are ordering the presidents to do it (unless they are quoting the paper!). "I am to watch a movie" means I have been ordered to. Not really "expectation".
00
If an ordinary person says "Bush and Clinton are to lead a fund raising push", it means that they are ordering the presidents to do it
I must admit, I wouldn't read it that way myself, woodcutter; unless e.g. the ordinary person was addressing a platoon of Presidents, of which B. and C. were part. I would expect them to have to be present, for it to be an order.
00
This is a headline, and as such it has been shortened by omitting the verb "to be". The full form is "Ex-Presidents Bush and Clinton are to lead a fund-raising push".
Yes, it is a headline, my first thought exactly. But while the news, that they will lead the fund-raising push, is already out and therefore in the past, the actual happening is still in the future.
00
Allegedly, "to" is the same as "are to" and is an abbreviation of the phrase "are going to", among other things said here like a version of omitting the "to" and present simple left or "to"=form of the verb to be.
However, I was told that "are to" is something that makes sense of an obligation like should\must -
However, I was told that "are to" is something that makes sense of an obligation like should\must -
00
Of course, I'm the one who said "to be to" meant something like obligation or expectation.
Maybe my response there was not as nuanced as you would have liked!
We're getting into the tricky area where the concepts of the will, futurity, obligation, and expectation cross into one another in complex ways.
If "expectation" doesn't strike you as a way of talking about the future, t
Maybe my response there was not as nuanced as you would have liked!
We're getting into the tricky area where the concepts of the will, futurity, obligation, and expectation cross into one another in complex ways.
If "expectation" doesn't strike you as a way of talking about the future, t
00
Related Questions