To-infinitive indicating a result

Question

* to-infinitive indicating a resultEx 1. They entered the room ,to find their valuables stolen.Ex 2. =&gt; They entered the room and found their valuables stolen.Ex 3. They entered the room, only to find their valuables stolen.Ex 4. =&gt; They entered the room, but found their valuables stolen.Ex 5. "He grew up to be president."* the underlined phrases are the subject of to-infinitive.Ex 6. This box is too heavy for her to lift.Ex 7. I was very glad for her to call in at home.Ex 8. I wouldn't stand any more for her to lie this time too.* When the subject of to-infinitive is the same with the subject of a main clause, we can't use the subject of to-infinitive as in Ex 9.Ex 9. To here him speak English, you would take him for a foreigner.I came to know the followings.1) You native speakers scarcely use to-infinitive indicating a result when the subject of to-infinitive is different form the subject of the main clause.So you use #5 rather than #4.2) And never use "for" preceding the subject of to-infinitive indicating a result.So you might use #4, but you will never use #3.3. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, for most of them to work in the salt mines there.4. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, most of them to work in the salt mines there.5. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, and most of them worked in the salt mines there.Up to here, am I right?Thank you in advance for your help.

Park sang joon · Accepted Answer

I want to revive this thread.

Anonymous · Answer

ex. 1: This can be okay but only in certain very specific contexts.
ex. 2: This is okay.
ex. 3: This is okay.
ex. 4: This is not right. The two parts of the sentence don't match logically.
ex. 5: This is okay.
ex. 6: This is okay.
ex. 7: This is ungrammatical.
ex. 8: Ungrammatical.
ex. 9: This is okay.

3. This is not right. You cannot have the sequence, "...to Siberia, for most of them to work..."
4. This is not right. You cannot have the sequence, "...to Siberia, most of them to work..."
5. This is not right. The two parts of the sentence are not properly matched.

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, No Name One, for your valuable answer.

But I'd like to know why #7 and #8 are ungrammatical.

3. This is not right. You cannot have the sequence, "...to Siberia, for most of them to work..."
4. This is not right. You cannot have the sequence, "...to Siberia, most of them to work..."
5. This is not right. The two parts of the sentence are not properly matched.

I see; then setting the context aside, can I use #4 to express a result?

Anonymous · Answer

You're trying to follow specific rules, but these grammatical constructions are typically governed by usage which has evolved over hundreds of years and does not follow specific rules. Some words are used in these types of constructions, others are not, and this is determined by tradition, not by rules. You just have to learn the usage by experience.

For example, 7 and 8 are understandable, and seemingly logical, but the wording is not right in them. These sentences, expressing these ideas, are just not said this way in English.

4 is just not logical. In this type of situation, the following would be logical, for example:

The thief had been in their room, but their valuables were still there when they entered the room.

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, No Name One, for your elaborate and detailed answer.

But I meant the following sentence by #4 and I'd much like to use to-infinitive indicating a result that the subject of it is different than the subject of a main clause.

4. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, most of them to work in the salt mines there.

Shouldn't I use sentences such as #4?

Anonymous · Answer

4. "The prisoners were transported to Siberia, most of them to work in the salt mines there." This sentence brings up a very complex part of English grammar. The general "rule" here is that a "to" infinitive phrase cannot function as the verb of a clause, with its own subject. So the following are all ungrammatical - in each of them the "to" infinitive phrase is trying to function as a verb of a clause, with its own subject, which is not allowed:

The prisoners were transported to Siberia, most of them to work in the salt mines there.

Many kids from the country moved to the city, many of them to work in the factories there.

We get up at 5, the kids to be ready for school by 7.

These would be okay as the following:

The prisoners were transported to Siberia to work in the salt mines there. (The is no second clause, and "to work" does not have a subject.)

Many kids from the country moved to the city to work in the factories there. (No second clause, no subject for "to work.")

We get up at 5, with the kids being ready for school by 7. (No second clause, no verb for "the kids.")

The following are also okay, splitting the sentence into two independent clauses:

The prisoners were transported to Siberia, and most of them ended up working in the salt mines there.

Many kids from the country moved to the city, and many ended up working in the factories there.

We get up at 5, and the kids are ready for school by 7.

However, there are certain acceptable constructions that resemble an illegal "to" infinitive phrase with a subject, but these are not actually what they appear to be, upon a closer examination:

The captors transported the prisoners to Siberia, expecting most of them to work in the salt mines there. ("Most of them" is the object of "expecting," not the subject of "to work.")

The farmer had 15 kids, too many for one farm, and so he told half of them to move to the city to work in the factories there. ("Half of them" is the object of "told," not the subject of "to move.")

We get up at 5, expecting the kids to be ready for school by 7. ("The kids" is the object of "expecting," not the subject of "to be.")

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, No Name, One, for your very elaborate and detailed answer.

But My thought is quite different from your opinion; see the examples below.

A. There were extensive special wards, where unhappy girls drifted like autumn leaves when the winter approached, many of them to die of consumption.
<http://spartacus-educational.com/Wbutler.htm>
B. Hundreds of thousands more were expelled, many of them to die in the camps.
<http://culture.polishsite.us/articles/art311fr.htm>

The examples above all have the subjects of to-infinitive and each to-infinitive phrase is split by a comma.
I think you can find much more examples.

Anonymous · Answer

A and B are okay. In these, the "to" infinitive phrase is not trying to function as the verb of a clause, with its own subject. In A, the second clause is "where unhappy girls...winter approached," not, "many of them to die of consumption." "Many of them...consumption" functions more like an afterthought.

In B, "many of them to die in the camps" is not functioning as the second clause, again this more like an afterthought.

However, in, "The prisoners were transported to Siberia, most of them to work in the salt mine there.", "most of them...there" is trying to function like a second clause, which is not allowed. In order to be okay, this has to function like an afterthought, not as a second clause, for example, the following is okay, and similar to the usage in A and B:

"The prisoners were transported to Siberia, many of them to end up dying in the salt mines there." (Here, "many of them...mines there" functions as an afterthought, not as an attempted second clause.)

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, No Name One, for your sincere concern and continuing to answer.

I can't understand what difference "afterthought" you tell me about has from a result.

The followings are a little different than A or B, because in the following sentences, each to-infinitive express a purpose, not a result.

C. A significant proportion of South Africa's neighboring states have migrated to South Africa, many to work.
D. As recently as the 1980s, young Irish were fleeing unemployment in droves, many to work illegally in the United States.
E. Every summer, 150,000 migrant workers come to Oregon, many of them to work in the state's $80 million-a-year berry industry.” They may earn as little as $3 an hour at some Willamette Valley berry farms~

Anonymous · Answer

D and E are okay. In them the "to" infinitive phrase functions as an afterthought, not as a second clause. In D and E and main idea is expressed very strongly in the first clause, with the infinitive phrase just an afterthought, not something of the importance of a second clause.

C is not right. Here the infinitive phrase has enough significance to qualify as a second clause, which it cannot be. In D and E the first clause states the whole idea essentially: young Irish fleeing unemployment, 150,000 migrant workers coming to Oregon every summer, but in C the first clause doesn't fill us in completely about why they came to S. Africa; a second clause is expected to do that, but an infinitive phrase cannot be this second clause.

To-infinitive indicating a result

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions