# This task is (going) to be carried out by that Department



## loureed4

Hi,

   I´m reading a book in which I see this sentence: *"This task is to be carried out by that department" .*

  My guess is that that sentence is exactly the same than "This task is *going* to be carried out by that Department"

  In this same book, there are a few of them, like "You are to take me to the town" , it´s the same structure but reading this book I realized that if you placed "going" in the middle, the sense, the meaning didn´t change.  Am I right? Because it´s only a guess.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## blasita

No, in my opinion they don't mean exactly the same. 'This task is to be carried out ...' means something like 'tiene que' whereas 'is going to' is just a plan ('va a').

'Be to' can be used for future reference in the context of obligations, requirements, formal decisions, etc. 

Saludos.


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Blasita! , easy to understand the way you explained it.

I appreciate your help a lot!


----------



## neal41

loureed4 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I´m reading a book in which I see this sentence: *"This task is to be carried out by that department" .*
> 
> My guess is that that sentence is exactly the same than "This task is *going* to be carried out by that Department"
> 
> For me the above 2 statements have the same meaning.



In general I think that 'is going to' is stronger than 'is to'.  The latter indicates what is supposed to happen or what has been planned.  Let's say that a mother takes her child to the doctor.  The doctor says, "She is to take 3 pills a day."  The mother says, "She is going to take one after each meal."  It would be strange for the doctor to use 'is going to'.  He does not know what the child will do.  He is just saying what she should do.  The mother on the other hand has control over the child.  She can say much more authoritatively what will happen.

For me "You are going to take me to town" is stronger, more authoritative than "You are to take me to town."


----------



## loureed4

I get the idea Neal,

   Thanks for yout time and help! . These forums are so great!

Again, thanks!


----------



## blasita

> I´m reading a book in which I see this sentence: *"This task is to be carried out by that department" .
> My guess is that that sentence is exactly the same than "This task is going to be carried out by that Department"*
> For me the above 2 statements have the same meaning.



Sorry, but I don't understand how they must have exactly the same meaning. I think that they might have, but it will depend on context. Can't 'is to' in the first sentence be interpreted as a kind of obligation and the second as just a plan? I believe so, but I can be mistaken: can someone explain this a bit further, please?


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Blasita,

    Let see what others say, because I notice, as you say, some kind of obligation in the first one. But I´m not an English speaker, far for that still.

    Anyway, Neal is a native person and, according to him both are the same. It´s kind of crazy for me, because I see how even native people, even in other threads, say different things. This is because I´ve never stopped thinking about my own language (Spanish) , maybe it would happen the same.

Thanks!


----------



## blasita

Loureed, I'm not a native speaker either and yes, they are the ones who know best about usage of the language; I just talked about grammar (and my own experience). I'm looking forward to having some clarification/more replies.


----------



## loureed4

Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe it´s not a big deal, maybe I´m trying to run over myself , I mean, to speed up with English. What I mean by that is such nuances are caught maybe later, when you read a lot, when you speak a lot, and so on, I was just curious because I saw such structure in a book, and I could understand what the narrator said because of the context, but I´m sure that the more I see this same structure, all of a sudden I won´t need any further explanation, that happens very often, you just get up one day and you know a thing with which you used to struggle for months.

Thanks again Blasita!


----------



## lancer99

neal41 said:


> In general I think that 'is going to' is stronger than 'is to'.  The latter indicates what is supposed to happen or what has been planned.  Let's say that a mother takes her child to the doctor.  The doctor says, "She is to take 3 pills a day."  The mother says, "She is going to take one after each meal."  It would be strange for the doctor to use 'is going to'.  He does not know what the child will do.  He is just saying what she should do.  The mother on the other hand has control over the child.  She can say much more authoritatively what will happen.
> 
> For me "You are going to take me to town" is stronger, more authoritative than "You are to take me to town."



Does anyone in the US actually say things like "she is to take three pills a day?"

My doctor would probably say "she has to take three pills a day," or more likely, "give her three pills a day."


----------



## loureed4

Hi Lancer,

   Thanks for the reply!

   I may go to work to UK or The Netherlands or any other European country, so, the more I know, the better for me, I think. Though I´d love to go to the USA or Canada to work, Green Card in the US makes things a bit difficult for that purpose.

   In the book I read that sentence, maybe it´s too formal, maybe not, that´s why I´m trying to find a way out of my confussion and gather enough information in oder to know if it is useful, used in daily life in the UK or Ireland ... I hope you understand.

Thanks indeed!


----------



## lancer99

LR4,
In the U.S., "This task is to be carried out by that department" sounds like something out of an official document or law ruling. (x) is to be (passive)   It's very formal and probably wouldn't be used other than in a written context.

In everyday English you'd say something like "This task has to be/must be carried out by that department."

In the UK it might be used in spoken language, for example a very stern schoolteacher might say "You are to finish reading the book by tomorrow."


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Lancer99!

   I think I catch the idea

Very kind of you, for your help!


----------



## neal41

lancer99 said:


> Does anyone in the US actually say things like "she is to take three pills a day?"
> 
> Yes, such sentences are normal in the spoken and in the written language.  Someone who hears or reads it will understand what it means and will not think that it is in any way unusual.
> 
> My doctor would probably say "she has to take three pills a day," or more likely, "give her three pills a day."
> 
> There are a variety of ways to express the same basic meaning and they may in fact be more common than "she is to take . . ."


----------



## neal41

lancer99 said:


> LR4,
> In the U.S., "This task is to be carried out by that department" sounds like something out of an official document or law ruling. (x) is to be (passive)   It's very formal and probably wouldn't be used other than in a written context.
> 
> If you search for 'he is to take' in Google, you get 107 000 000 hits; if you search for 'they are to arrive' you get 7 000 000.  It is instructive to read them in context.
> 
> In everyday English you'd say something like "This task has to be/must be carried out by that department."
> 
> For me, 'is to be carried out' is a routine and normal way to talk about a plan, which, like all plans, may or may not be realized in practice.  'has to' and 'must' produce a considerably stronger statement, which really has a different meaning.


----------



## blasita

loureed4 said:


> I think I catch the idea



Pues como yo no entendía especialmente la afirmación de que ambas oraciones significaran lo mismo, abrí un hilo en el foro de 'English Only'; por si le sirve a alguien la respuesta dada, que para mí es muy clara: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2320936

Saludos.


----------



## loureed4

Thanks all for your replies, I learn a lot from here! 

I take advantage to wish you all Happy Christmas!


----------



## loureed4

HI Blasita,

   It seems to me that even native people have different views on the matter, and somehow that makes me feel a bit reassured, becuase the nuance seems to be not big deal. I want to be understood when I got to the UK or The Netherlands, and of course I wanted to know the difference, but, as you are seeing, even people from both The US or The UK state different things.

Thanks for the link Blasita, for me it´s not 100 percent clear (because their different views) but I have learned a lot anyway, a lot!!


----------



## blasita

loureed4 said:


> Thanks for the link Blasita, for me it´s not 100 percent clear (because their different views) but I have learned a lot anyway, a lot!!



Como parecía que para ti sí estaba claro no quise insistir en este hilo sino que abrí otro al ver que no había más respuestas aquí. Para mí sigue estando claro: yo lo veo como el forero que respondió en el hilo del otro foro. De todas formas, en todos los idiomas una determinada gramática puede llegar a depender de la situación en sí y del hablante. Sólo me he centrado en el título de este hilo (y creo que está más claro al dar un contexto determinado como hice allí); quizás lleguen más opiniones también en el otro hilo.

Suerte y saludos.


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Blasita! indeed! . You helped me a lot!


----------



## Wandering JJ

An interesting thread. In spite of the many comments about obligation, etc., which I agree are apposite in several contexts, often the phraseology 'is to be + pp' means no more than the future passive. For example:

- The next meeting is to be held on January 3rd next year.
- The next meeting is going to be held on January 3rd next year.

In my humble opinion, these two statements are identical in meaning, as asked by Loureed in Post #1.

I notice that all the comments from native English language speakers are from US people. Perhaps the structure has more of an obligation nuance in AmE. Certainly in BrE the suggested statement from doctor to kid's mother: 'She is to take three tablets per day,' is equivalent to 'She should take three tablets a day,' - obligation; but in many cases the structure is simply an alternative way of expressing the future.

_I am to see if anyone agrees with me. _


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Wandering JJ,

   Did anyone from UK reply before you? I didn´t notice it.

I´m struggling a little with such nuances among even you, native speakers, some say one thing, others another, kind of crazy, hehe, but good to know. I´m learning a lot!

Thanks for your time!


----------



## blasita

Wandering JJ said:


> - The next meeting is to be held on January 3rd next year.
> - The next meeting is going to be held on January 3rd next year.
> In my humble opinion, these two statements are identical in meaning
> _I am to see if anyone agrees with me._



Even though my opinion is not important at all, I wanted to say that I agree about this one. But as I said, I think it depends on the context. 

As to _the sentence of this thread_, I still can't understand why they are identical in meaning; I gave a particular context in the other thread (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2320936) and I think it's clear that they _*may*_ have different meanings depending on context, especially they don't mean the same thing in that context.


----------



## Peterdg

Well, this seems to be a popular subject for the moment. Here's another thread (from yesterday) about the same subject.


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Peterdg!

    I´m getting mixed up with so many different answers! I need one day or two to review all of this.

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Wandering JJ

blasita said:


> Even though my opinion is not important at all, I wanted to say that I agree about this one. But as I said, I think it depends on the context.
> 
> As to _the sentence of this thread_, I still can't understand why they are identical in meaning; I gave a particular context in the other thread (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2320936) and I think it's clear that they _*may*_ have different meanings depending on context, especially they don't mean the same thing in that context.


Blasita, your opinion is very important and, as I said, it depends on context - so we agree on the obligation nuance and there may be others.

I've just thought of a nice non-obligation one!
A - Your garage door looks tatty [gastada]!
B - I know, but *it's to be painted* tomorrow.
Here, I have the feeling that the garage door will be painted tomorrow (future) with the added inuendo that it will not be painted by Speaker B but by someone else. If Speaker B had said: 'I know, but *it will be painted* tomorrow,' that could indicate painted either by the speaker or someone else.

And I thought this would be a simple thread!


----------



## blasita

Wandering JJ said:


> Blasita, your opinion is very important Gracias, JJ. Ojalá esto siempre fuera así y todos los foreros fueran tan respetuosos como tú.
> and, as I said, it depends on context - so we agree on the obligation nuance and there may be others.



No voy a añadir nada más, pero veo que hay algunas diferencias en la interpretación de determinados ejemplos por parte de algunos foreros y ahora el uso no está del todo claro para mí (aunque lo estaba); los idiomas a veces son así. Un saludo.


----------



## inib

Peterdg said:


> Well, this seems to be a popular subject for the moment. Here's another thread (from yesterday) about the same subject.


Yes, I read that thread too, and I think the idea of "inevitablity" is worth a mention.
Having said that, I think there are contexts in which _to be to_ and _to be going to_ are synonyms, though in most cases there is that nuance of either obligation or inevitability.


----------

