To infinitive serving as an adjective and relative pronoun

Question

HI~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Staff ____ in the building after 10p.m are requested to inform security and to make sure that they receive full authorization from their superior officer.1. remained  2.remaining  3.to remain  4.for remaining--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The answer is 2.  and not a difficult one. but soon I got curious about whether or not 'to remain' is replacable. I sense it is not replacable in this case. or is it?what about this? "My plan to remain in the building after 10 p.m. didn't actually happen.""I finally got a guy to remain in the building after 10 p.m. instead of me,"Is this correct to use?Thank you.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

Staff remaining in the building etc.

The infinitive cannot directly replace the present participle here.
(When it replaces the -ing form of the verb, we're usually looking at a gerund (functioning as a noun)).

"Staff wishing to remain in the building" works fine. The infinitive is object of the present participle, and again, the participial phrase is adjectival.

c2ran"My plan to remain in the building after 10 p.m. didn't actually happen."
"I finally got a guy to remain in the building after 10 p.m. instead of me,"

Is this correct to use?

These uses of the infinitive are correct, but a couple of the incidental word choices are not ideal.

Maybe "didn't actually materialize," and "in my stead"?

CalifJim · Answer

c2ranI sense it is not replacable in this case. or is it?

Staff to remain in the building used to mean Staff remaining in the building is not going to work very well, so your intuition that the replacement cannot be made is basically correct.

c2ranMy plan to remain in the building

In this case to remain in the building is the plan. Above, to remain in the building is not the staff.

But more importantly, the noun plan comes from the verb plan, which takes an infinitive.

I plan to go shopping tomorrow.
I have a plan to go shopping tomorrow.

staff can't work like that. There is no verb staff from which the noun staff could inherit some sort of grammatical pattern in the way that plan does.
_________

Verbs of desire are the model for this use of an infinitive after a corresponding noun:

I desire to go away soon. > my desire to go away soon

He needs to stay home today. > his need to stay home today
Roberta wishes to see Rome some day. > Roberta's wish to see Rome some day
_________

Another use of an infinitive after a noun usually requires a transitive verb. The noun acts as the object of the infinitive.

a problem to solve (You can solve a problem.)
a rule to explain (You can explain a rule.)

a concert to attend (You can attend a concert.)
people to meet (You can meet people.)
books to read (You can read books.)

Note: You cannot "remain a staff".

c2ranI finally got a guy to remain in the building

This pattern is unlike those above because the infinitive here is part of the catenative idiom to get someone to do something. There is no doubt that to remain in the building does not describe guy in the way that you wanted to remain in the building to describe staff. Rather, guy is really more like the subject of the verb remain: I got this to happen: A guy remained in the building.

________________________________________

That said, it is still just possible to use staff to remain in the building if it means staff who are to remain in the building, i.e., staff who have been instructed to remain in the building or staff who are supposed to remain in the building.

Announcement after a meeting: Will staff to remain in the building after 10 tonight please stay a moment longer for further instructions after the others have left? Thank you.

To return to the example sentence you asked about -- it does not seem likely that security would not have been informed that certain members of the staff were to remain in the building if it was prearranged, so choice 3 is not good in the context of that particular sentence because it involves the staff informing security of something they probably would have known already.

CJ

C2ran · Answer

AvangiThe infinitive cannot directly replace the present participle here.
(When it replaces the -ing form of the verb, we're usually looking at a gerund (functioning as a noun)).

But doesn't to-infinitive and relative clause play same role as adjective? then, it must be felt like differently using one or the other. I mean, if it shares the same function and cannot be interchangeable, then i think it's plausible to assume there is a semantic difference.

what about this?

"He is not a man to break his promise." - (a)

"He is not a man who breaks his promise." - (b)

"He is not a man breaking his promise." - (c)

"He is not a man who will break his promise." - (d)

My guess is (a) is equivalent in meaning to (d) rather than (b). Is this right?

Another reason I am asking all this stuff because I am trying to trace a common thread explaining how phrase and clause are interchangeable. It seems like many aspects of grammar deals with this matter.(Relative clause <-> reduced phrase, adverbial clause <-> participial phrase etc...)

Along with this, I even take a wild guess about sentence patterns, the way in which a verb governs the shape of sentence, for example,

"I want you to eat this. " comes from (in my own theory)
"I want that you eat this." ,which is not the correct usage but comparing "I want that I eat this", it soon becomes clear why we use object(you) in the main sentence before to eat. Because subjects of wanting and eating are not identical, we put the separate subject, which also happens to be an object of 'want'. Moreover, since in "I want that I eat this." both subjects are identical we can simply modify it to "I want to eat this." without placing other subject before 'to eat'.

All of these are my efforts to make an explanation as to why certain verb forms a certain structure in a sentence.As just mentioned, the verb 'want' cannot take 'that' clause. Then, why so? It would be much easier for me if every verb in English took 'that' clause as an object. Put this aside, my example shows how noun clause 'that' can be transformed into 'to infinitive' phrase, even though it is just my stupid theory.

So, please offer some insight here!

C2ran · Answer

CalifJim Staff to remain in the building used to mean Staff remaining in the building is not going to work very well, so your intuition that the replacement cannot be made is basically correct.

Just like a detention, where a student has to remain in school after others have gone home. Right?
"A student to remain after school should go to the other classroom now."

Thank you, CJ. I actually couldn't shut my mouth when reading your explanation. So thrilled. Amazing.
Actually, your answer was up while I was writing a reply to Avangi. Would you please have a look at that and if anything, instruct me more?
Anyway, I will think your comments over and over again and I'm grateful for you help.

Avangi · Answer

c2ran I actually couldn't shut my mouth

Me neither!

Am I relieved of my duties?

- A.

C2ran · Answer

Avangi
c2ran I actually couldn't shut my mouth
Me neither! Am I relieved of my duties? - A.

You helped me a lot before and this time, too. Thank you!

Avangi · Answer

Just kidding.

I'm having fun!

- A.

CalifJim · Answer

c2ranJust like a detention, where a student has to remain in school after others have gone home. Right?
"A student to remain after school should go to the other classroom now."

Yes. That's the general idea.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

c2ran"I want you to eat this. " comes from (in my own theory)
"I want that you eat this." ,which is not the correct usage but comparing "I want that I eat this", it soon becomes clear why we use object(you) in the main sentence before to eat. Because subjects of wanting and eating are not identical, we put the separate subject, which also happens to be an object of 'want'. Moreover, since in "I want that I eat this." both subjects are identical we can simply modify it to "I want to eat this." without placing other subject before 'to eat'.

You are correct.

want (and many other verbs) take a non-finite clause as a complement. The subject of the complement clause is in the objective case.

With to:

I want [him to eat this].

She needs [us to lift this].
They expect [her to read it].

Note: I want [me to eat this] is wrong. Both I and me refer to the same person, so a change is required: I want [ - to eat this].

Because of this required change, we know that in He wants him to write a letter, He and him are two different people. If they were the same, him would have been dropped.
______________________

There are also a few verbs that have the pattern without to:

He made [them eat that].
We let [him go there].
I saw [you do that].

Note: I made me do it is wrong. Both I and me refer to the same person, so a change is required (but not the same change as above): I made [myself do it].

Because of this required change, we know that in He made him do it, He and him are two different people. Otherwise, him would be expressed as himself.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

c2ran I am trying to trace a common thread explaining how phrase and clause are interchangeable.

Don't knock yourself out trying! This sort of thing is the subject of a great deal of research, and I don't know enough about it even to tell you whether any satisfactory solutions have been found.

c2ranwhat about this?

"He is not a man to break his promise." - (a)

"He is not a man who breaks his promise." - (b)

"He is not a man breaking his promise." - (c)

"He is not a man who will break his promise." - (d)

My guess is (a) is equivalent in meaning to (d) rather than (b). Is this right?

I agree with your interpretation. It's yet another use of an infinitive after a noun, and it seems to me that it's a very specialized use, involving character description. Here we are saying that the man's character is such that he is not capable of breaking a promise. We might paraphrase it as

He is not the kind of man who would/could ever break a promise he had made.

I may be wrong, but I'm inclined to think that this structure is so limited that it should be called an idiom. It doesn't even work in the affirmative:

*He is a man to keep his promise.

CJ

To infinitive serving as an adjective and relative pronoun

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions