# sentences consisting of only a phrase



## park sang joon

Some of the below sentences each consist of only a to-infinitive phrase.


Each year thousands of books are published, *many of them to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers*
 - *a few to remain in circulation as long as books are read.* Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~


1) A Participle phrase can be rephrased as a sentence consisting of a conjunction and clause, and then how abut a to-infinitive phrase?
2) Can we use a sentence consisting of a gerund phrase like a participle phrase or to-infinitive phrase?


----------



## Keith Bradford

If they don't contain a finite verb, they're not sentences. Personally, I would have used a full stop (= period) or at least a semi-colon in both of these, thus:

Each year thousands of books are published*; many of them attract *momentary attention ...
*. A few remain in circulation *as long as books are read.

Clearly, this writer is fond of infinitives.  Who is it?  You're supposed to say (see the website rules).


----------



## JulianStuart

I am not sure I understand your specific questions but I see your text as one complete sentence and the beginning of a second.  There is a lot of ellipsis going on and I have inserted in [] the word "intended", to reflect that the sentence is conveying the _intent_ of the publishers: the "to" is being used with the _meaning_ of "with the goal of" , "in order to" "for the purpose of" etc. (even though those _actual_ subsitutions would require a gerund).


> Sentence 1) Each year thousands of books are published, many of them [intended] to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few [intended] to remain in circulation as long as books are read. Sentence 2) Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~


   Also, the text after the dash (a few ...) indicates a parallel structure where a repetition of the beginning of the sentence has been avoided.  The dash does not actually separate two sentences, so what follows the dash is not a "sentence with an infinitive".  The net result is that we can take it apart into its two original sentences
a) Each year thousands of books are published, many of them [intended] to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers . 
b) Each year thousands of books are published, [only] a few [of which are intended] to remain in circulation as long as books are read. 

Not an _elegant_ condensation of two sentences into one with a dash, for sure, but structurally decipherable   The "to" structure seems to be similar to "I have many dictionaries, some to help with my translations, others to keep the door open".  The writer of your sentence chose to use a dash instead of the second comma:  "I have many dictionaries, some to help with my translations - others to keep the door open".  I don't favour it, but I understand it.  I would probably even favour a colon for the first one  "I have many dictionaries: some to help with my translations, others to keep the door open".

Revised version 
Each year thousands of books are published: many of them to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers, a few to remain in circulation as long as books are read.

Edit: Cross-posted with Keith.  I also would have rewritten it more clearly if I was this chap's editor.

On further reflection, the original sense may not carry the "intent" of the publisher, but rather simply describe the fate of the books.  The structural analysis remains the same. "He put a lot of effort into the post - only _to_ revise it at the last minute"


----------



## e2efour

I think the question revolves around the idea of using an infinitive as a result clause*. So _many of them to attract momentary attention_ has been written instead of _many of them attracting momentary attention._
But I doubt whether this is really possible. The _to attract_ suggests a clause of purpose (_in order to attract_), which makes no sense.

The _only to disappear gradually_ works as a result clause.

But the last infinitive (_a few to remain in circulation_) cannot be written as a separate sentence, and I would also change the infinitive to an _ing_-form.

*For example, _He rushed across the room, only to fall over the carpet.
_But _He rushed across the room, to fall over the carpet._ Is this really possible as a result clause?
More plausible for a result would be _The prisoners were transported to Siberia, many to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures._
But I don't think that the infinitives in the original work.

I don't understand your second question (2).


----------



## MarcB

sentencs consisting of only one phrase sounds more natural to me.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

MarcB said:


> sentencs consisting of only one phrase  sounds more natural to me.


Please explain. More natural than what?


----------



## MarcB

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Please explain. More natural than what?



More natural than a phrase (sentences consisting of only a phrase)


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you everyone for your answer. 

*"Mr.Keith Bradford : Clearly, this writer is fond of infinitives. Who is it? You're supposed to say (see the website rules)."*
I extracted my example from my reading reference very famous in Korea and the author might have extracted from an English news paper or magazine.

*"Mr.Julian Stuart : Not an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash"*
What structure was the above sentence made up by?; your sentence is consisting of a noun phrase.

*"Mr.MarcB : I don't understand your second question (2)."*
2) Can we use a sentence consisting of a gerund phrase like a participle phrase or to-infinitive phrase?
For example:
I was in a hurry in the morning, me not having breakfast.
Is that sentences like the above sentence possible?


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> Thank you everyone for your answer.
> *"Mr.Julian Stuart : Not an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash"*
> What structure was the above sentence made up by?; your sentence is consisting of a noun phrase.


You passed the test  It's more of an exclamation, like "What a shame!"  The _understood_ verb has been omitted so it now looks like a noun phase.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you Mr.JulianStuart for your answer.

Did you mean *"What **an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash!"?*
In any chance, do you let me know where I can find expressions like that?


----------



## JulianStuart

No, I simply meant "[It is] not an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash."  It was presented as an example of when a verb is omitted to yield a sentence that looks like (only) a noun phrase, so you will be able to recognize one when you see it again.  Exclamations are other places where verbs are sometimes omitted.   One of the tricky things about studying English is learning how to spot situations where a word or phrase has been omitted as "understood".  In some cases, the omission represents an informal style (my example is somewhat informal), while in others, the word(s) may be omitted to avoid (unnecessary) repetition, as in "parallel" constructions. (see example 1 in this discussion also https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/623/01/ )


----------



## park sang joon

*Thank you JulianStuart for your answer**

"while in others the omission represents an formal style**, the word(s) may be omitted to avoid (unnecessary) repetition, as in "parallel" constructions."*
I know the repeated words is omitted when clauses are connected through 'and', 'or', 'but', 'yet'  and I use the usage in posting here, and I know the repeated words should not be omitted after a subordinate conjunction;
why did you omit the phrase "*the omission represents an formal style"?*

*"[* * It   is**] not an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." *
That a pronoun and the verb 'be' or an auxiliary verb are omitted together is common.  Is this usage such a thing as exclamation?
In your sentence save for 'It is', all words are modifiers for 'condensation' including 'not' which modify 'an elegant condensation'; why do you use so complex a noun phrase?


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> *Thank you JulianStuart for your answer**
> 
> "while in others the omission represents an formal style**, the word(s) may be omitted to avoid (unnecessary) repetition, as in "parallel" constructions."*
> I know the repeated words is omitted when clauses are connected through 'and', 'or', 'but', 'yet'  and I use the usage in posting here, and I know the repeated words should not be omitted after a subordinate conjunction;
> why did you omit the phrase "*the omission represents an formal style"?*


It was unnecessary.  It might even have been misleading - the parallel construction can also be used in informal styles.



park sang joon said:


> [ * It   is**] not an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." *
> That a pronoun and the verb 'be' or an auxiliary verb are omitted together is common.  Is this usage such a thing as exclamation?
> In your sentence save for 'It is', all words are modifiers for 'condensation' including 'not' which modify 'an elegant condensation'; why do you use so complex a noun phrase?


Why not? My meaning was simply the _negative_ version of "It   is an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." I do not find it complex.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you JulianStuart for your continuous replies.

*"Why not?"*
I have extracted some examples from Oxford Practical English Usage Third Edition.
(Have you) seen Joe?
(There's) nobody at home.
(That'll ) be four pounds fifty.

How about the above sentences ?; are all expressions for exclamation?


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> Thank you JulianStuart for your continuous replies.
> 
> How about the above sentences ?; are all expressions for exclamation?


I fear you may have misunderstood my post above.  Some exclamations are examples of this "omission" but that is not the same as saying "If omission is used it is called an exclamation" (That is not a true statement).  Your new sentences will need at least one new thread. 
.


----------



## park sang joon

I wish that I made a new thread for omission for exclamation, but I don't know that usage and I don't know how I make up examples for that.
What's should I do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How can I differentiate *between *a sentence with words omitted at the beginning of it  for having not stress *and *a sentence with words omitted for exclamation?


----------



## Keith Bradford

park sang joon said:


> ...How can I differentiate *between *a sentence with words omitted at the beginning of it for having not stress *and *a sentence with words omitted for exclamation?




Sometimes the grammar of the sentence means it can only be a de-emphasised one: e.g.  "_Can't seem to get the hang of this new software."  "Would like to come to your party_."

Sometimes, it's clear that it's an exclamation: "_Danger, falling rocks!"  "No smoking."

_But in other cases it must be said, it's ambiguous.  If I hear my wife call from the next room: "Getting dinner on soon" I keep having to ask her "Was that *I'm *getting dinner on, or *will you be *getting dinner on?" In other words was it a statement or a command?  There then follows a discussion on the state of my hearing. 

If in doubt, be explicit.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Mr.Bradford, for your answer

*"[* *It is**] not an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." *
Is the above sentence heard like exclamation to you?

*"Are getting dinner on" - command*
*"I will be getting dinner on soon" - statement*
Am I right?


----------



## Keith Bradford

*"Not **an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." *
Is the above sentence heard like exclamation to you?

No, not an exclamation, more of an abbreviated statement.  But if it had an exclamation mark, it might be seen as an exclamation, though it's rather long.  Exclamations are usually shorter.

"Are you getting dinner on" - Question/rhetorical question/command 
"I will be getting dinner on soon" - Statement.


----------



## park sang joon

*Thank you Mr.Bradford for your kind and concrete answer **

"Not **an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." *
*No, not an exclamation, more of an abbreviated statement. But if it had an exclamation mark, it might be seen as an exclamation, though it's rather long. Exclamations are usually shorter.*
Julian Stuart said "It's more of an exclamation, like "What a shame!" The _understood verb has been omitted so it now looks like a noun phase."_

*Are **you** getting dinner on*
Does a imperative sentence need to have a subject?


----------



## Keith Bradford

Usually, an imperative sentence has no subject: _"Get dinner on!"

_But it's quite possible for it to have one: _"Mary, sweep the floor and you, get dinner on."

_But there are other forms an imperative can take.  It can sound like a question:_ "Will you please get dinner on!"_  This is sometimes called a rhetorical question, meaning that it doesn't really expect an answer.


----------



## park sang joon

I see; thank you Mr.Bradford for your continuous answer 

*"Are getting dinner on" 
So, Is the above sentence wrong?*


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yes, it's wrong.


----------



## park sang joon

So, Can we omit only a subject only if we use the present tense?


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> *
> 
> "Not **an elegant condensation of two sentences into one with a dash." *
> *No, not an exclamation, more of an abbreviated statement. But if it had an exclamation mark, it might be seen as an exclamation, though it's rather long. Exclamations are usually shorter.*
> Julian Stuart said "It's *more of* an exclamation, like "What a shame!" The _understood verb has been omitted so it now looks like a noun phase."_


Please note, park sang joon, the use of the words "*more of*" in my original sentence. * I did consider putting an "exclamation mark" (i.e. the symbol !) at the end of it, *where the sense of "it was a very inelegant condensation" would have been more emphatic.  (I decided not to, mainly because I feel I tend to overuse the symbol)  However, my mention of exclamation was primarily to explain that there are different types of situation where verbs may be omitted.  I did *not* say - as you seem to have misunderstood - that *all* instances of omission are exclamations.  When someone says "A's more of a B" it means that A has some of the characteristics of a B.

Keith and I are not disagreeing - this discussion illlustrates that the distinction between an "exclamation" and an "abbreviated sentence" is not clear-cut. I suppose, from a technical viewpoint, that any sentence with a *!* at the end shpuld be called an exclamation, however long*!* My sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories.

To re-cap: Some exclamations omit verbs.  Many verb omissions are unrelated to exclamations,


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, JulianStuart, for your concrete answer and continuous replies *

When someone says "A's more of a B" it means that A has some of the characteristics of a B.*
I have thought when someone says "A's more of a B" it means that A has much of the characteristics of a B.; were my thought completely wrong?

*long**!
*What is 'long*!'?*


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings



> Does a imperative sentence need to have a subject?



Yes, grammatically, they do. By their very nature, imperatives are always addressed to someone, usually in the 2nd person (which may be singular or plural). But the subject is only stated in what may be termed the "vocative".

"Enjoy the game!"

"Enjoy the game, boys!"

"Boys, enjoy the game!"

All three are possible, but implicitly the "boys" are subjects of the imperative "enjoy".

Σ


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> *long**!
> *What is 'long*!'?*


From the dictionary:long. adj.
having considerable or greater than usual measurement in length or distance:
_a long table; a long way to travel. A long sentence_,


----------



## Smauler

park sang joon said:


> So, Can we omit only a subject only if we use the present tense?



No.  "Getting the dinner on?", "Going to go to feed the horses?", and "Fed the dogs?" are all easily understandable if you're talking to one person in my household.

However, I wouldn't advocate using them generally.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Smauler, for your continuous replies in my threads


----------



## park sang joon

*From the dictionary:long. adj*
I didn't mean that 

*Did you mean the following sentence  by "however long! My sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories."*
However long it is, my sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories.
And have you used omission with '!' for exclamation?


----------



## Forero

You can sometimes insert things into sentences to explain the meaning, but the grammar is another matter.

These infinitives with _to_ are modifiers (modifying "many of them" and "a few"), not altered subordinate clauses. I suppose the noun phrases beginning with "many" and "a few" here may be taken as appositives of "books", but I see them as absolute constructions.

If you have to insert something, try "with" in front of "many" and "but with" in front of "a few".


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Forero, for your valuable answer. 

Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention only *to disappear* gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers
- a few *to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~

Do you think of to-infinitives in bold as adjective phrases, not adverbial phrases expressing the result?

Each year thousands of books are published, *with many of them to attract momentary attention only* *to disappear* gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers
- *but with a few* *to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~

Have you seen such expressions as showed in the above sentence?


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> *From the dictionary:long. adj*
> I didn't mean that
> 
> *Did you mean the following sentence  by "however long! My sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories."*
> However long it is, my sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories.
> And have you used omission with '!' for exclamation?



I wrote two separate sentences, each of which could stand alone: 
1)I suppose, from a technical viewpoint, that any sentence with a ! at the end should be called an exclamation, however long! 
2)My sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories.
Sentence 1 illustrates the use of an exlamation mark at the end of a long sentence, turning it into an "exclamation".  The implied meaning was "However long a sentence is, if it ends with a ! it can be called an exclamation."


----------



## park sang joon

*I suppose, from a technical viewpoint, that any sentence with a **! at the end shpuld be called an exclamation, however long! 
My sentence could be considered to be somewhere in between the two categories.
*
I'm so sorry, Julian Stuart; I have wrongly divided the sentences 
Anyway, you have expressed exclamation with a '!'


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> Anyway, you have expressed exclamation with a '!'



Indeed.  It was simply an illustration of the dictionary definition





> exclamation mark, US exclamation point
> n.  the punctuation mark_* ! *used after exclamations_ and vehement commands.


----------



## Forero

park sang joon said:


> Thank you, Forero, for your valuable answer.
> 
> Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention only *to disappear* gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers
> - a few *to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~
> 
> Do you think of to-infinitives in bold as adjective phrases, not adverbial phrases expressing the result?
> 
> Each year thousands of books are published, *with many of them to attract momentary attention only* *to disappear* gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers
> - *but with a few* *to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~
> 
> Have you seen such expressions as showed in the above sentence?


Yes, but they are better without _with_. Here is a simpler example of the construction I have in mind:

_Each year thousands of books are published, most of them large— some small._

Here "most of them large" and "some small" are absolute noun phrases. "Large" modifies "most of them", and "small" modifies "some". The sentences we are talking about here have infinitive phrases instead of "large" and "small", but the overall structure is the same.

In a noun phrase such as "books to remain in circulation as long as books are read", an infinitive modifies a noun. This same noun phrase might mean "books that ought to remain in circulation as long as books are read", with the adjectival infinitive expressing a purpose, but it might mean only "books that will ultimately remain in circulation as long as books are read".

I read the infinitives in the original sentences in this latter sense. They express destiny (somewhat as if the author were omniscient), not purpose.


----------



## Truffula

I agree with Forero: the infinitives in the original sentence are an expression of destiny.  The author may not know which books are destined to remain in circulation, but confidently predicts that a few will, and most will not.

Similar structure example:

Each year many acorns fall from this oak tree, most to be eaten by squirrels, a few to take root and grow into saplings.

The infinitive phrases are not standalone sentences.  The sentence is complete before the comma; the phrases express the result of the action described.  Books are published; acorns fall.  What happens next?  The infinitive phrases tell us the answer.

A famous sentence from _Hamlet_ by Shakespeare:  

"To be, or not to be--that is the question:                           
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer                           
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune                           
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles                           
And by opposing end them."  

Is "To be, or not to be?"  by itself a complete question?  I am not sure.  Shakespeare has Hamlet state that it is, but the actual sentence on which it hangs is the simple "That is the question." which is unquestionably a complete sentence.  The piece left out is that the speaker is making a choice between the two options.  

In general, it's okay for a sentence to be incomplete only when it is immediately intuitively obvious what it means as a complete sentence.  Whether or not that is the case is very difficult for a beginner or even a person with intermediate familiarity with the language to determine.  Even for native speakers it can be a judgment call.  Mistakes are made.  

"Its five year mission: to boldly go where no one has gone before."  Another case of leaving out the word "is" and very clear.  (From the introduction to the television show Star Trek.)


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, JulianStuart for your continuous replies.

*Indeed. It was simply an illustration of the dictionary definition*
Why did you that?


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Forero, for your answer.

_*Each year thousands of books are published, most of them large— some small*
_Is the above sentence grammatical?; I think the verb phrase 'are published' before the adjective is omitted in the above sentence.

*They express destiny (somewhat as if the author were omniscient), not purpose.*
I don't think so; the author tell the predicted truth with Knowledge through his experience.


----------



## Forero

park sang joon said:


> Thank you, Forero, for your answer.
> 
> _*Each year thousands of books are published, most of them large— some small*
> _Is the above sentence grammatical?; I think the verb phrase 'are published' before the adjective is omitted in the above sentence.


"Most of them are published large" does not make sense to me, but I might say ""most of them large" means "most of them being large". Either way it is an absolute construction, not a clause.

It is more of an appositive than an adverbial. It describes some of the books and says nothing about why, how, when, or where they are published.

The two together "most of them large" and "some (of them) small" divides "the books" into two groups described separately.





> *They express destiny (somewhat as if the author were omniscient), not purpose.*
> I don't think so; the author tell the predicted truth with Knowledge through his experience.


I was off the mark with "omniscient". It is an extreme example of what I meant to say, which is why I said "somewhat as if". Tuffula's "confidently predict" is more accurate.


----------



## JulianStuart

park sang joon said:


> Thank you, JulianStuart for your continuous replies.
> 
> *Indeed. It was simply an illustration of the dictionary definition*
> Why did you that?


To ensure that you did not continue with the possible impression that exclamations are always short, whether or not they have omissions


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Foreoro, for your continuous replies.
*Each year thousands of books are published, most of them large— some small*
In any chance, if you have such expressions as shown in the above sentence in your mind or in your notes, could you post the examples like that?


----------



## park sang joon

I don't
Anyway, thank you, Julian Stuart, for your concern.


----------



## park sang joon

I'd like to revive this thread.

[In the post #4]
1. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, *many *to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures.
[In the op]
2. Each year *thousands of books* are published, *many of them* to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - *a few* to remain in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~

1.
1) I think the second part is the simple to-infinitive expressing a result and "for" is omitted before "many."
2.
1) I think the two noun phrases "many of them to attract~" and "a few to remain~" are in apposition with "thousands of books."
2) "Only to disappear" and "to remain" are to-infinitive expressing results and each "for" before the subjects of them is omitted because two to-infinitive belong to each a noun phrase and "for" can't be positioned at the start of noun phrases.

Up to here, am I right?


----------



## Forero

park sang joon said:


> I'd like to revive this thread.
> 
> [In the post #4]
> 1. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, *many *to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures.
> [In the op]
> 2. Each year *thousands of books* are published, *many of them* to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - *a few* to remain in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~
> 
> 1.
> 1) I think the second part is the simple to-infinitive expressing a result and "for" is omitted before "many."
> 2.
> 1) I think the two noun phrases "many of them to attract~" and "a few to remain~" are in apposition with "thousands of books."
> 2) "Only to disappear" and "to remain" are to-infinitive expressing results and each "for" before the subjects of them is omitted because two to-infinitive belong to each a noun phrase and "for" can't be positioned at the start of noun phrases.
> 
> Up to here, am I right?


Not really.

The phrase "only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers" does seem to be adverbial, modifying "attract". Here _only_ means "nevertheless" or "anyway". 

The other infinitives in 1 and 2 modify pronouns (_many_ and _few_), so they are not adverbial.

All the infinitives in 1 and 2 are meant to express destiny, not purpose, and there is no "for" implied or even suggested in association with them.

We know what happened to many of the prisoners sent to Siberia, and we know what happens to books that are published, and we know what happens to the books that are published and then attract momentary attention: Many of the prisoners were to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures, many of the books are to attract momentary attention, a few of the books are to remain in circulation as long as books are read, and the published books that attract momentary attention are nevertheless to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Forero, for your elaborate answer and sincere concern. 


> All the infinitives in 1 and 2 are meant to express destiny, not purpose, and there is no "for" implied or even suggested in association with them.


We have one method to make sure your opinion is absolute in Korea.
Please, see the following transformation processes of the two examples.

1-1. The prisoners were transported to Siberia *and *many *were to suffer* extremely from the sub-zero temperatures.
1-2. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, many *(being)* to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures. *<a transition period>*
1-3. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, many to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures.

2-1. Each year thousands of books are published *and *many of them to attract momentary attention only *are to disappear *gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few *are to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~
2-2. Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention only *(being)* to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few *(being)* to remain in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~ *<a transition period>*
2-3. Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few to remain in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~

Please regard 1-2 and 2-2 as residues which appear during the transformation process.


----------



## Forero

park sang joon said:


> 1-1. The prisoners were transported to Siberia, many *were to suffer* extremely from the sub-zero temperatures.


This is what we call a comma splice. It needs either a period and a captial _M_ or a conjunction, e.g. _and_.





> 2-1. Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention only *were to disappear *gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few *were to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~


This does not make sense.


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Mr.Forero, for your continuing to answer. 
I have just corrected the errors you have pointed out.


> This does not make sense.


If my method is wrong, then how do you think to-infinitive can express destiny?


----------



## Forero

park sang joon said:


> Thank you, Mr.Forero, for your continuing to answer.
> I have just corrected the errors you have pointed out.
> 
> If my method is wrong, then how do you think to-infinitive can express destiny?


How an infinitive that looks like it expresses purpose can express destiny is a hard question. As far as grammatical form, all of these infinitives resemble infinitives of purpose. But they don't have "in order" in front of them, and this makes them ambiguous.

But because what we have of the second sentence ("Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~") suggests we are looking at probabilities based on history, "in order" does not fit the context.

It is perfectly understandable that you would miss this fine point. In this thread you can see several native English speakers' posts in which they seem to be struggling to understand your long sentence. Even JulianStuart (Post #3) at first took the infinitives as expressing intent (= "purpose") and later realized they had to do with fate (= "destiny"). The structure happens to be ambiguous.

I think you have the right idea in starting with a simpler sentence, and 1-3 is a good example. Maybe now I can explain what it going on...

In 1-3, "many to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures" is like an appositive for "the prisoners". I say like an appositive, because "many to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures" does not quite do what most appositives do. In particular, it does not just call "the prisoners" something else. Instead, it says something about "many" (a subset, perhaps not all) of them.

In 2-3, there are two such "appositives" for the noun phrase "thousands of books", referring to different subsets: (1) "many of them to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers", and (2) "a few to remain in circulation as long as books are read". They are both like appositives for "thousands of books", saying something about "many" (not all) of the thousands and "a few" (not among the "many") of the thousands, respectively.

In 1-3, "to suffer extremely from the sub-zero temperatures" modifies "many", and it looks like an infinitive of purpose. In fact it fits into 1-3 the same way an infinitive of purpose would. But "many to suffer" in 1-3 does not mean "for many to suffer" because it is not adverbial, and "to suffer" is not intended to mean "in order to suffer".

Instead, "to suffer" in 1-3 means something more like "destined to suffer". The phrase that looks like an appositive with an infinitive of purpose is really a comment about the destiny, the known or very probable future, of the "many".

Similarly in 2-3, "many of them to attract" and "a few to remain" look like appositives with infinitives of purpose but are really comments about the destiny of (some of) the thousands of books.

I think I see what you are trying to do in 1-2 and 2-2. You want to insert "being"s to make it a little more obvious that the infinitives are like adjectives. Unfortunately, we have run headlong into a defective verb.

Let me explain what I mean by defective. Some verbs in English simply do not have infinitives or participles. The verb "shall", for example, does not have a present participle. It makes a certain amount of sense to expect a possible form *"shalling", but it is never used and therefore does not exist.

"Are" and "were" are forms of the verb "to be", but when used with an infinitive of destiny "are" and "were" are forms of a verb that is defective, like "shall". With an infinitive of destiny, the forms "be", "been", and "being" are just never used.

Just as "They shall suffer" is valid but *"shalling suffer" is not, "They were to suffer" is valid to express destiny, but "being to suffer" is not. And "being to attract", "being to remain", and "being to disappear" are equally invalid for expressing destiny.

1-1 is a valid sentence, but it is not equivalent to 1-3 because it does not contain an imbedded form, what I have been calling "like an appositive" or an "absolute construction".

2-1 is wrong. A valid sentence of the 1-1 type based on, but not equivalent to, 2-3 would be:

2-1'. _Each year thousands of books are published, and many of them are to attract momentary attention but are only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers— and a few are to remain in circulation as long as books are read._

Note that I have put "are" in front of "only", not after it, because in 2-3 it means "nevertheless", not "solely".

In 2-3 and in 2-1', "to disappear" looks like it means "in order (for them) to disappear", but it does not mean that because it expresses destiny, not purpose. "Only to disappear" in 2-3 and 2-1' means something like "destined to disappear anyway".


----------



## Truffula

Another discussion of this destiny-infinitive is here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2483946


----------



## park sang joon

Thank you, Forero, for your elaborate and detailed answer and sincere concern. 
If you don't mind, I'd also like to say my opinions I have.

To-infinitive has the four major usages, a purpose, a result, the cause of a feeling, and a conditional.

At the end of a sentence, to-infinitive by followed a comma usually expresses a result whereas at the start of a sentence, to-infinitive following a comma usually express a purpose.
For example: "They entered the room, to find the window broken."

So it's highly probable that #1 expresses the result, but I can't only understand why "for" preceding the subject of "to suffer" is omitted, because when the subject of to-infinitive is different from the subject of the main clause, to-infinitive needs the subject of it along with "for" preceding the subject.

As a result, I'd like to believe #1 expresses the result without "for" for some reason.

#2 has more complex structure than do #1 and I agree with you that "only to disappear" and "to remain" express the destiny, but I think "to attract" is a simple adjectival phrase modifying "many of them."

And to-infinitive hasn't the usage "destiny' whereas "be to" has the usage "destiny" along with the other usages.
I know #2-2 is ungrammatical, so in the previous post, I asked you for regarding 2-2 as residue which appears during the transformation process.

I have corrected the errors you pointed out in #2-1.

2-1. Each year thousands of books are published and *many of them* to attract momentary attention *are only to* disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers *and *a few *are to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~
2-2. Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention *(being) only to* disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few *(being) to remain* in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~ *<a transition period>*
2-3. Each year thousands of books are published, many of them to attract momentary attention only to disappear gradually from the shelves and the minds of readers - a few to remain in circulation as long as books are read. Even among "best sellers" only a few have ~

Once more, please note that 2-2 is residue which appears during the transformation process.


----------

