0
Redkiddy Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
what is the grammar structure here?
Hi from Türkiye,
No one was to have given an additinal information.
I cannot translate this sentence and grammar sturucture....what is this what does it mean?
I know " to be to verb" structure as in this sentence---"he is to visit the castle"
But I could not find a relation my first sentence with this "to be to verb " sructure.
No one was to have given an additinal information.
I cannot translate this sentence and grammar sturucture....what is this what does it mean?
I know " to be to verb" structure as in this sentence---"he is to visit the castle"
But I could not find a relation my first sentence with this "to be to verb " sructure.
Top answer
That's ok, IMHO. Here's how I see it: Imagine, you were to give a two-hour lecture at 17:25. Now it is 21:00.
- That's ok, IMHO.
- Here's how I see it: Imagine, you were to give a two-hour lecture at 17:25.
- Now it is 21:00.
- You can say: "At 19:25 (17:25 + two hours) I was to have given a lecture", because the lecture would have eneded by 19:25, which is already in the past.
- So, the full lecture is in the past (at a past moment of time), hence a perfect form: was to have done.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
That's ok, IMHO. Here's how I see it:
Imagine, you were to give a two-hour lecture at 17:25. Now it is 21:00. You can say: "At 19:25 (17:25 + two hours) I was to have given a lecture", because the lecture would have eneded by 19:25, which is already in the past. So, the full lecture is in the past (at a past moment of time), hence a perfect form: was to have done.
P.S.: Maybe my
Imagine, you were to give a two-hour lecture at 17:25. Now it is 21:00. You can say: "At 19:25 (17:25 + two hours) I was to have given a lecture", because the lecture would have eneded by 19:25, which is already in the past. So, the full lecture is in the past (at a past moment of time), hence a perfect form: was to have done.
P.S.: Maybe my
00
No one is to have been given access to this bank vault after except the branch president. But the vault was found opened.
This is saying “no body was supposed to be allowed or given access after ….”
The “be + to verb” is not a commonly structure which is usually used to emphasize a point. i.e.
This is saying “no body was supposed to be allowed or given access after ….”
The “be + to verb” is not a commonly structure which is usually used to emphasize a point. i.e.
00
Sorry for the disturbance, but please help me to clarify it:
1. I was to start writing the letter yesterday at 8:00.
2. I was to have written the letter yesterday at 8:00.
The meaning of #1 is quite clear: the author planned to proceed to composing the letter at the indicated moment. As to #2, the speaker planned to finish the letter at 8:00 (or earlier, = "to have finished t
1. I was to start writing the letter yesterday at 8:00.
2. I was to have written the letter yesterday at 8:00.
The meaning of #1 is quite clear: the author planned to proceed to composing the letter at the indicated moment. As to #2, the speaker planned to finish the letter at 8:00 (or earlier, = "to have finished t
00
To my ears, your examples should be followed by additional context. By itself, it does not sound complete.
1. I was to start writing the letter yesterday at , (but Mary dropped by to chat for a little while and so I didn’t get around to it.) – you had serious plan to write the writer, but…..
2. I was to havewritten the letter (writt
1. I was to start writing the letter yesterday at , (but Mary dropped by to chat for a little while and so I didn’t get around to it.) – you had serious plan to write the writer, but…..
2. I was to have
00
Thanks for the feedback, Goodman!
«To my ears, your examples should be followed by additional context. By itself, it does not sound complete.»
The only reason of incompleteness that I see is the lack of a note about the affair's not having been accomplished (due to some unexpected/sudden event). I think that's what you mean.
And you changed the word order in my sentence
«To my ears, your examples should be followed by additional context. By itself, it does not sound complete.»
The only reason of incompleteness that I see is the lack of a note about the affair's not having been accomplished (due to some unexpected/sudden event). I think that's what you mean.
And you changed the word order in my sentence
00
Ant,
Check this out to see if you recognize the parttern:
I was planning to have the laundry done tonight vs. I was planning to have done the laundry tonight. Which do you think sounds more
fluent?
Check this out to see if you recognize the parttern:
I was planning to have the laundry done tonight vs. I was planning to have done the laundry tonight. Which do you think sounds more
fluent?
00
Goodman. I recongnize both of them (or are they the same pattern?). Yes, the first one I find more fluent, but does that mean the other is downright wrong?
00
No one was to have given any additional information.
to have given and to give are practically the same here, but the use of have given suggests that maybe someone has already given additional information, which they were not supposed to do.
to be to = to be supposed to, i.e. some expectation is involved.
00
1. I was to start writing the letter yesterday at 8:00.
2. I was to have written the letter yesterday at 8:00.
The meaning of #1 is quite clear: the author planned to proceed to composing the letter at the indicated moment. As to #2, the speaker planned to finish the letter at 8:00 (or earlier, = "to have finished the letter by 8:00"). Am I right?
Here's
00
«There is another sentence -- one which you didn't ask about in this post.»
That's what Goodman wanted me to realize! Thank you, now I seem to have got it.
That's what Goodman wanted me to realize! Thank you, now I seem to have got it.
0
Related Questions