# concerns or issues to arise



## discernment tan

Regarding the question below, the correct answer is ①, and ② and ④ are considered incorrect.
A key component in designing a research project is identifying particular concerns or issues to ( ).
① address *② arise* ③ bring *④ come up*　

However, as to the sentence below, the correct answer is ⑥ALL CORRECT 
(①When it was time to leave) (②and I was waiting for the taxi) (*③to take me to the station*), (④I have to confess) (⑤that I shed a tear or two.) ⑥ALL CORRECT

I guess, "issues to arise" is incorrect, because in this usage of infinitive, modifying backward like as an adjectival phrase, the relation between "issues" and "arise" shouldn't be virtually the Subject and the Verb. (I mean "Issues(S) arise(V).")

However in the latter sentence, the relation between "the taxy" and "to take (me to the station)" is virtually the Subject and the Verb.
(I mean the taxy (S) will take (V))

Why?
In which case is this kind of usage correct?


----------



## lingobingo

_Only_ *address* works in that first sentence.

A key component in designing a research project is…
identifying particular concerns or issues to address. ​= identifying which particular concerns or issues one needs to address.​= identifying those concerns or issues that need to be addressed (= dealt with).​​The “*to*” prepositional phrase in the other sentence is entirely different:
​I was waiting for the taxi to take me to the station​= I was waiting for the arrival of the taxi that was going to take me to the station (presumably!)​​But I have to say that neither sentence reads particularly well to me; in fact, the statement about the taxi is ambiguous.


----------



## discernment tan

I can't still understand the difference between, 
"concerns or issues (that are going) to arise" and "the taxi (that is going) to take me to the station".

One of my hypotheses is that, the latter sentence can be interpreted as "I was waiting for the taxi to (have it) take me to the station" and such sentences are considered correct; "to take" is kind of modifying the word "waiting".

What do you think?
Which would you choose among the options ①-⑥ in the latter sentence?


----------



## lingobingo

The ambiguity is:

*I was waiting for the taxi {to take me to the station}*
= I was in the taxi, waiting for it to take me to the station.

*I was waiting for {the taxi to take me to the station}*
= My taxi for the station had been ordered but had not yet arrived.


----------



## discernment tan

I am asking why "the issues to arise" can't be interpreted as "the issues that is going to arise", while "the taxi to take" can be interpreted as "the taxi that is going to take".


----------



## Edinburgher

discernment tan said:


> I am asking why "the issues to arise" can't be interpreted as "the issues that is going to arise",


Because of context.  A sentence like "We were expecting some issues to arise" would be interpreted your way:
We were expecting the "arising" of issues.  We were *expecting* something *to happen*, or *waiting for* something *to happen*.
What makes "to happen" possible is the connection to the verb.  This "to happen" doesn't attach itself to the "something" but to the "expecting" or the "waiting".

But in "We were trying to *identify* particular issues", that kind of interpretation isn't possible, because "to arise" doesn't want to connect with "identify".
Instead the "to address" indicates the purpose of identifying the issues.  Why were we trying to identify the issues?  Because we wanted to deal with them (address them).


----------



## discernment tan

In the latter sentence, I think the person is waiting for the taxi to arrive, I don't think he or she is in the taxi and waiting for it to take me home.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> The ambiguity is:
> 
> *I was waiting for the taxi {to take me to the station}*
> = I was in the taxi, waiting for it to take me to the station.
> 
> *I was waiting for {the taxi to take me to the station}*
> = My taxi for the station had been ordered but had not yet arrived.


Now I understand what you say.
I don't think he or she is in the taxi. I think he or she is just waiting for the taxi's arrival.
Can this sentence be interpreted as your second possibility, which I consider correct?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes. If it’s ambiguous, that means it could be understood in more than one way. But the fact is that the sentence is not well written. Well-written English is unambiguous!

A more natural way to say that clearly (without having to spell out that a taxi had been ordered but had not yet arrived, which is what we assume is meant) would be: while I was waiting for *my taxi to the station*…


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> I can't still understand the difference between,
> "concerns or issues (that are going) to arise" and "the taxi (that is going) to take me to the station".


Why are you focusing on *arise*, when it makes no sense in answer to that first test question?

… identifying particular concerns or issues to address  (= that you need to address).
… identifying particular concerns or issues to arise. 

… identifying particular concerns or issues that may arise and therefore need to be addressed.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> Why are you focusing on *arise*, when it makes no sense in answer to that first test question?
> 
> … identifying particular concerns or issues to address  (= that you need to address).
> … identifying particular concerns or issues to arise.
> 
> … identifying particular concerns or issues that may arise and therefore need to be addressed.



How about the sentence below?
Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization *to aid* in execution of audit activities.

This is the sentence that is truly in question.
I don't think the verb "consider" nor "use" makes this kind of structure. (Subject + Vreb + Object + to infinitive)

I think "aid" is like "help" and I don't think that "aid" is used for the behavior to help/aid auditors themselves in audit activities.
So the subject of "to aid" should be "technology", but grammatically it is incorrect, isn't it?


----------



## Edinburgher

discernment tan said:


> I think "aid" is like "help"


Yes.


discernment tan said:


> and I don't think that "aid" is used for the behavior to help/aid auditors themselves in audit activities.


Why not?

I'd say the implied object of 'aid' (if one be needed) is 'them', i.e. the auditors.
A better word would probably be 'assist', but that doesn't change the grammar.

'Execution' needs the article 'the'.

I see "available to the organization" as a reduced relative clause "*that is* available to the organization", modifying 'technology'.  I see it as non-defining and therefore optional, so it can be omitted.

I see "to aid" as an infinitive of purpose.  They should consider using this technology *in order to* help them in the execution of their auditing activities.


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> How about the sentence below?
> Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization *to aid* in execution of audit activities.


It’s a badly written sentence, so not a suitable example. It would be clearer as, for example:

Auditors should consider using whatever technology is available to the organization as an aid in the execution of their auditing activities.​


----------



## discernment tan

Edinburgher said:


> Yes.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> I'd say the implied object of 'aid' (if one be needed) is 'them', i.e. the auditors.
> A better word would probably be 'assist', but that doesn't change the grammar.
> 
> 'Execution' needs the article 'the'.
> 
> I see "available to the organization" as a reduced relative clause "*that is* available to the organization", modifying 'technology'.  I see it as non-defining and therefore optional, so it can be omitted.
> 
> I see "to aid" as an infinitive of purpose.  They should consider using this technology *in order to* help them in the execution of their auditing activities.


They should consider using this technology *in order to* help them in the execution of their auditing activities.

"In order to help" is an adverbial clause that modifies "consider" or "using", thus the subject is "they". 
I think the subject of "help" and that of "consider" or "using" should be the same, but actually different.


----------



## lingobingo

“They should use X in order to help them” is not idiomatic. I think Edinburgher meant it as an explanation of the meaning, not as a suggested rewrite.

It would anyway be the whole main clause that was being modified, not just the verb *consider*.

They should consider using this technology.
Why?
To help [them in the execution of] their auditing activities.
Because it would help them in the execution of their auditing activities.


----------



## discernment tan

Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization *to aid* in execution of audit activities.

So you mean this sentence is grammatically incorrect?
How about the sentence below?
Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization to make it aid in execution of audit activities.


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t know quite what you’re now saying is incorrect, but never mind. That new “How about?” example is not at all natural. 

I suggested a way to say it in #13. But the best way to improve the original would be to put it more simply. For example:

Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization *to aid their [auditing] work*.​


----------



## discernment tan

S=subject, V=verb, O=object
Let the sentences be simpler; 
①　"They use technology to aid in their work." (the original)
②　"They use technology to aid their work." (your amendment)

I can understand ② is correct, because the S of "use" is also the S of "to aid".
But in ①, it is implied that the S of "aid" is "technology" because "they aid themselves" sounds strange to me unless there is a word "themselves". 
If so, if the S of "to aid" is "technology", the sentence is grammatically incorrect, because it is like the first sentence "issues to arise".

However, do you mean, even in ①, the S of "to aid" can be considered "they", although it is not clear?


----------



## lingobingo

*To aid* does not have a subject (assuming that’s what you mean by S?). In both of those examples, it’s an infinitive in a non-finite adverbial clause.

And who said that ① sentence was OK? You’ve marked it as “the original” but it’s not the same as the one in #11, which I’ve already said is badly written, in my view. 

to aid in execution of audit activities 
to aid in their work


----------



## discernment tan

Thank you LB.
I think I fully understood your points. 
Non-native speakers such as Japanese want the words "grammatically incorrect" rather than "badly written", because learning English is closely related to our exams.
As you said, "To aid" does not have a subject, but I mean "who or what aids", which I called "the virtual subject".
For example, 

Being rainy, he stayed home. (incorrect)
It being rainy, he stayed home. (correct)

This is because, not "he", but "it" is what I call "the virtual subject" of "being rainy".

"Being rainy" is an adverb phrase which modifies "stayed" or the whole sentence, so if the virtual subject is not he, it is considered incorrect, isn't it?


----------



## lingobingo

That *it* is usually described as a “dummy subject” – one used purely for grammatical reasons. There is actually no such _thing_ as an “it”, of course, and it has no antecedent to stand in for.

In your incorrect sentence, the dangling modifier – “being rainy” – implies that “he” was rainy!


----------



## homotopy07

lingobingo said:


> *I was waiting for the taxi {to take me to the station}*
> = I was in the taxi, waiting for it to take me to the station.
> 
> *I was waiting for {the taxi to take me to the station}*
> = My taxi for the station had been ordered but had not yet arrived.


Which of those two interpretations do you think is more likely?

I thought only the former was possible.

I can't come up with a natural sentence that uses *the taxi to take me to the station* as a noun phrase meaning "the taxi that will/is going to/etc take me to the station".


----------



## lingobingo

It can certainly mean that, even if there are better ways to say it. You could think of it as having any of these ellipses.

I was still waiting for the taxi [I’d booked] to take me to the station.
I was still waiting for the taxi [whose purpose was] to take me to the station.
I was still waiting for the taxi [that was going] to take me to the station.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> That *it* is usually described as a “dummy subject” – one used purely for grammatial reasons. There is actually no such _thing_ as an “it”, of course, and it has no antecedent to stand in for.
> 
> In your incorrect sentence, the dangling modifier – “being rainy” – implies that “he” was rainy!


I know "dummy subject" but this is irrelevant here.

Being very beautiful, the man is interested in her romantically. incorrect
The girl being very beautiful, the man is interested in her romantically. correct


----------



## discernment tan

homotopy07 said:


> Which of those two interpretations do you think is more likely?
> 
> I thought only the former was possible.
> 
> I can't come up with a natural sentence that uses *the taxi to take me to the station* as a noun phrase meaning "the taxi that will/is going to/etc take me to the station".


Thank you homotopy, this is from the entrance exam of Waseda University. You couldn't pass the exam and neither could I.


----------



## homotopy07

discernment tan said:


> Thank you homotopy, this is from the entrance exam of Waseda University. You couldn't pass the exam and neither could I.


I was assuming that the "taxi" sentence was a stand-alone one. Is it a sentence from a reading comprehension problem?


----------



## discernment tan

It is a stand-alone question of English grammar, as in the Question 1 of most Waseda's exam.
Waseda's grammar question is the most difficult, partially because the answer could be "All Correct or No error".


----------



## Edinburgher

lingobingo said:


> I think Edinburgher meant it as an explanation of the meaning, not as a suggested rewrite.


That's right.


discernment tan said:


> They should consider using this technology *in order to* help them in the execution of their auditing activities.
> 
> "In order to help" is an adverbial clause that modifies "consider" or "using", thus the subject is "they".
> I think the subject of "help" and that of "consider" or "using" should be the same, but actually different.


I don't understand what do you mean by "should be the same, but actually different".

There is no reason why the subject of 'help' should be the same as that of the other two verbs.
The infinitive "to help" (or originally "to aid") has no direct grammatical subject, but its logical or virtual subject can be found by answering the question "Who or what can help them in the execution of their activities?".  The two possible answers I can see are "this technology" and "using this technology".


----------



## discernment tan

Edinburgher said:


> That's right.
> 
> I don't understand what do you mean by "should be the same, but actually different".
> 
> There is no reason why the subject of 'help' should be the same as that of the other two verbs.
> The infinitive "to help" (or originally "to aid") has no direct grammatical subject, but its logical or virtual subject can be found by answering the question "Who or what can help them in the execution of their activities?".  The two possible answers I can see are "this technology" and "using this technology".


I mean, "(in order) to aid..." is an adverbial phrase modifying "consider" or "using". Then who consider(s) using...? The answer is "Auditors". Thus, the virtual subject of "to aid" is also considered to be "auditors" from grammatical point of view.
But from context, the subject of "to aid" is considered to be "technology", or "using technology", and not "auditors".
So, if the author wanted to convey the meaning, "technology that will aid in audit activities", the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

I went to the restaurant in order to have dinner. (Correct)
I went to the restaurant in order to serve delicious dishes. (If "I" am a customer, the sentence is grammatically incorrect.)


----------



## Edinburgher

discernment tan said:


> I mean, "(in order) to aid..." is an adverbial phrase modifying "consider" or "using".


I would say it modifies "using", not "consider".


discernment tan said:


> Then who consider(s) using...? The answer is "Auditors".


Agreed.


discernment tan said:


> Thus, the virtual subject of "to aid" is also considered to be "auditors" from grammatical point of view.


I would disagree with this analysis.


discernment tan said:


> But from context, the subject of "to aid" is considered to be "technology", or "using technology", and not "auditors".


Agreed.  I see what you mean now by different.  You have two conflicting analyses that cannot both be right.
Actually, "to aid" in "in order to aid" does not need a grammatical subject, because infinitives don't need subjects.  However, the "virtual" subject, or the agent that does the aiding, does seem to be "using technology".


discernment tan said:


> So, if the author wanted to convey the meaning, "technology that will aid in audit activities", the sentence is grammatically incorrect.


Not necessarily.  It would be logically incorrect if the words "in order" are present, but if they're absent, then the sentence becomes ambiguous, and we can interpret it either as "to aid" modifying "technology" and having the meaning "technology that aids", or as modifying "using technology".


----------



## discernment tan

Edinburgher said:


> I would say it modifies "using", not "consider".
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I would disagree with this analysis.
> 
> Agreed.  I see what you mean now by different.  You have two conflicting analyses that cannot both be right.
> Actually, "to aid" in "in order to aid" does not need a grammatical subject, because infinitives don't need subjects.  However, the "virtual" subject, or the agent that does the aiding, does seem to be "using technology".
> 
> Not necessarily.  It would be logically incorrect if the words "in order" are present, but if they're absent, then the sentence becomes ambiguous, and we can interpret it either as "to aid" modifying "technology" and having the meaning "technology that aids", or as modifying "using technology".



Again, how about the sentence below?

I went to the restaurant to serve delicious dishes. ("I" am a customer, not a cook.)


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> Again, how about the sentence below?
> 
> I went to the restaurant to serve delicious dishes. ("I" am a customer, not a cook.)


That’s only wrong in the sense of being untrue/inaccurate. It’s not incorrect grammatically. Lots of nonsense is perfectly grammatical!

Re your latest comments about the test question, you don’t seem to have grasped the fact that an adverb or adverbial doesn’t have a subject; only a finite verb has a subject. An adverbial modifies a verb, adjective or adverb to indicate things like purpose, manner, time, place, frequency (answering the questions why, how, when, where, how often).

Let’s just assume that this sentence is OK as it stands:

Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization to aid in execution of audit activities.​
How it breaks down can be seen as:

Auditors (subject) 
should consider (verb) 
using technology (gerund phrase as direct object)
available to the organization (adjective phrase modifying *technology*)
to aid in execution of audit activities (infinitive phrase as adverbial of purpose, modifying all preceding text after the subject and verb)


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> That’s only wrong in the sense of being untrue/inaccurate. It’s not incorrect grammatically. Lots of nonsense is perfectly grammatical!


Isn't this the same as "technology" sentence, about which you said "to infinitive" modifies all preceding text?
If so, the sentence makes sense, but only badly written.



lingobingo said:


> you don’t seem to have grasped the fact that an adverb or adverbial doesn’t have a subject; only a finite verb has a subject.


Of course I know what you mean. I just called "the person(s) or thing(s) that aid(s)" the "subject" or "virtual subject" of the infinite, because there seemed to be no name for that.



lingobingo said:


> An adverbial modifies a verb, adjective or adverb to indicate things like purpose, manner, time, place, frequency (answering the questions why, how, when, where, how often).


Of course I know.



lingobingo said:


> modifying all preceding text after the subject and verb


Sometimes, it is said that an adverb(ial phrase) modifies the whole sentence (or "all preceding text" in this case), but I don't think it is true. Actually such an adverb always modifies the specific word(s), the main verb of the part.
For example, 
"However, the population of Japan is decreasing."
You may say that "however" modifies the whole sentence, but actually it modifies the verb "is (decreasing)".


----------



## homotopy07

lingobingo said:


> Re your latest comments about the test question, you don’t seem to have grasped the fact that an adverb or adverbial doesn’t have a subject; only a finite verb has a subject. An adverbial modifies a verb, adjective or adverb to indicate things like purpose, manner, time, place, frequency (answering the questions why, how, when, where, how often).


I think the OP wants to discuss what is called "semantic subjects" in English language education in Japan, rather than "syntactical subjects".

_*Mary* left early to *catch* the 7:00 train._
(The semantic subject of *catch* is *Mary*.)

[Cross-posted.]


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> How about the sentence below?
> Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization *to aid* in execution of audit activities.
> 
> This is the sentence that is truly in question.
> I don't think the verb "consider" nor "use" makes this kind of structure. (Subject + Vreb + Object + to infinitive)
> 
> I think "aid" is like "help" and I don't think that "aid" is used for the behavior to help/aid auditors themselves in audit activities.
> So the subject of "to aid" should be "technology", but grammatically it is incorrect, isn't it?


The way I see it, "available to the organization to aid [whoever uses it] in execution of audit activities" is a defining modifier of "technology". The technology in question, then, is available for helping auditors to do their job, and it is that technology that would do the aiding.

I think the infinitive most likely modifies "available", but it might also be taken to modify "technology".


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> Sometimes, it is said that an adverb(ial phrase) modifies the whole sentence (or "all preceding text" in this case), but I don't think it is true. Actually such an adverb always modifies the specific word(s), the main verb of the part.
> For example,
> "However, the population of Japan is decreasing."
> You may say that "however" modifies the whole sentence, but actually it modifies the verb "is (decreasing)".


No. In that sentence, you’re using *however* not in its adverbial sense of “in whatever way [the population is decreasing]” but in its conjunctive sense of *but* or *nevertheless*, whereby it refers back to the previous clause, or in this case, sentence. It links clauses or sentences. It does not modify a verb.

Only in this sort of use could it be said to modify “is decreasing”.

However the population is decreasing, something needs to be done about it.​= In whatever way (or for whatever reason) this is happening, something needs to be done about it.​


----------



## discernment tan

Forero said:


> "available to the organization to aid [whoever uses it] in execution of audit activities"


Thank you Forero. Do you mean "available to aid (do something)" is idiomatic?
I destroyed a machine which would otherwise be available to do my job efficiently. 
My another possibility was that "available to the organization which we auditors will aid in audit activities."
In this case, "organization" is the object of "to aid", which I think is entirely grammatically correct.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> No. In that sentence, you’re using *however* not in its adverbial sense of “in whatever way [the population is decreasing]” but in its conjunctive sense of *but* or *nevertheless*, whereby it refers back to the previous clause, or in this case, sentence. It links clauses or sentences. It does not modify a verb.
> 
> Only in this sort of use could it be said to modify “is decreasing”.
> 
> However the population is decreasing, something needs to be done about it.​= In whatever way (or for whatever reason) this is happening, something needs to be done about it.​


How about the sentence, 

Unfortunately, the population of Japan is decreasing.


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> Thank you Forero. Do you mean "available to aid (do something)" is idiomatic?


No. "Aid" is not quite as flexible as "help".


discernment tan said:


> I destroyed a machine which would otherwise be available to do my job efficiently.


That sentence is fine.


discernment tan said:


> My another possibility was that "available to the organization which we auditors will aid in audit activities."
> In this case, "organization" is the object of "to aid", which I think is entirely grammatically correct.


I don't read it that way, and I don't see how it would make sense.


----------



## discernment tan

Forero said:


> I don't read it that way, and I don't see how it would make sense.


One of my potential interpretations is;

"Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization (that they are going) *to aid* in [through] execution of audit activities. (This interpretation is consistent with *The Definition of Internal Auditing* below.)

This is because, in the phrase which consists of "noun + to infinitive", the noun is usually the "semantic OBJECT" of to infinitive, such as in "One incredibly great *water to drink *is alkaline water".

The Definition of Internal Auditing​Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to *add value and improve an organization's operations*. It *helps an organization accomplish its objectives* by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes.


----------



## discernment tan

I found the following sentence;
Hence there was less moisture *available to fall* as rain, and the climate in East Africa became much drier.
As Forero said, this phrase can be used only with "available".

"using technology *useful to aid* in execution of audit activities" doesn't seem to be correct.


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> My another possibility was that "available to the organization which we auditors will aid in audit activities."
> In this case, "organization" is the object of "to aid", which I think is entirely grammatically correct.


That makes no sense. Auditors don’t aid/help/assist anything in the sentence in question. It’s the “technology available to the organization” that could aid their work if they chose to use it. 

But this thread has wandered too far from the original question.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> But this thread has wandered too far from the original question.


No. My point of view has not changed. It hasn't wandered TOO far.


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> My point of view has not changed.


Indeed.


----------



## discernment tan

I think, as Ferero says, "available" implies that the semantic subject is the user.

For example, in the sentence,
"My father bought me a machine available to do my job,"
it is implied that the semantic subject of "to make" is not my father, but "I", which makes it natural for "to infinitive" to work as an adverbial phrase.

But, in "less moisture *available to fall* as rain" the semantic subject is "moisture"....


----------



## lingobingo

The sentence isn’t even idiomatic. *Available* makes no sense in that statement.

EDIT: 
This comment referred to the sentence “My father bought me a machine available to do my job”. But the post has since been added to.


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> One of my potential interpretations is;
> 
> "Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization (that they are going) *to aid* in [through] execution of audit activities. (This interpretation is consistent with *The Definition of Internal Auditing* below.) …


I don't think it's valid to assume "in" means "through" in this context.


discernment tan said:


> I think, as Ferero says, "available" implies that the semantic subject is the user.


I did not say the user was the subject. I said the technology is the virtual subject of "to aid".


discernment tan said:


> For example, in the sentence,
> "My father bought me a machine available to do my job,"


I don't know what you are trying to say here. Was the machine available to the speaker before it was bought?


discernment tan said:


> it is implied that the semantic subject of "to make" is not my father, but "I", which makes it natural for "to infinitive" to work as an adverbial phrase.


Where does "to make" come from?


----------



## discernment tan

Forero said:


> I did not say the user was the subject. I said the technology is the virtual subject of "to aid".


Now I found that I was almost totally wrong, but your opinion that "available" makes it possible to use "to aid" sounds somewhat reasonable, although not completely reasonable.
Could you explain more about this?
Do you find any other words that work similarly to "available"? I don't think "useful" works similarly.


----------



## discernment tan

How about the two sentences quoted below?
"Available" makes it possible that the "virtual subjects" of the "to infinitives" is "moisture" and "transportation", respectively, I guess.

When forests are removed the air becomes drier, less moisture is available to fall as rain and therefore agriculture suffers.


----------



## lingobingo

less moisture is available to fall as rain = there is less moisture that can/could fall as rain
available to get to a clinic = available for the purpose of getting to a clinic


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> less moisture is available to fall as rain = there is less moisture that can/could fall as rain
> available to get to a clinic = available for the purpose of getting to a clinic


That's right. My point is if "available" makes it possible for "to infinitive(s)" to modify "moisture" and "transportation" while the virtual subjects are these nouns.


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> Actually such an adverb always modifies the specific word(s), the main verb of the part.
> For example,
> "However, the population of Japan is decreasing."
> You may say that "however" modifies the whole sentence, but actually it modifies the verb "is (decreasing)".


This "however" is a sentence adverbial. There are multiple places it can go in the sentence but only when comma-separated from other sentence elements:

_The population of Japan is decreasing*,* however._ [comma required]


discernment tan said:


> Now I found that I was almost totally wrong, but your opinion that "available" makes it possible to use "to aid" sounds somewhat reasonable, although not completely reasonable.
> Could you explain more about this?
> Do you find any other words that work similarly to "available"? I don't think "useful" works similarly.


In the way I read the sentence, the infinitive phrase "to aid …" is an adverbial of purpose, qualifying "available". "Useful" doesn't quite fit, but "usable" or "utilizable" might.


----------



## discernment tan

Forero said:


> This "however" is a sentence adverbial. There are multiple places it can go in the sentence but only when comma-separated from other sentence elements:


Thank you, but this argument is not relevant here any more.



Forero said:


> In the way I read the sentence, the infinitive phrase "to aid …" is an adverbial of purpose, qualifying "available". "Useful" doesn't quite fit, but "usable" or "utilizable" might.


Again now I think I've got it.

I thought "available" means the same as "usable", but they are different in the point below.

The virtual subject of "avail" is not auditors, but technology.
So, "virtual subject" of the adverbial infinitive ("to aid") which modifies "available" is also considered to be technology.

If it were "usable", the virtual subject of "use" is auditors.
So, adverbial infinitive's "virtual subject" is considered to be auditors.

I hope I am right.


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> Thank you, but this argument is not relevant here any more.
> 
> 
> Again now I think I've got it.
> 
> I thought "available" means the same as "usable", but they are different in the point below.
> 
> The virtual subject of "avail" is not auditors, but technology.
> So, "virtual subject" of the adverbial infinitive ("to aid") which modifies "available" is also considered to be technology.
> 
> If it were "usable", the virtual subject of "use" is auditors.
> So, adverbial infinitive's "virtual subject" is considered to be auditors.
> 
> I hope I am right.


The virtual subject is the same, but "available" has a more complex meaning than "usable" or "utilizable".

The auditors avail themselves of, utilize, or use, the technology, and the technology is meant to aid someone in some way.


----------



## discernment tan

Anyway, the virtual subject (VS) of "available" or "usable" is technology as in "technology is available or usable", thus the VS of "to aid", which modifies "available" or "usable" is regarded as "technology".

Am I right?


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> Anyway, the virtual subject (VS) of "available" or "usable" is technology as in "technology is available or usable", thus the VS of "to aid", which modifies "available" or "usable" is regarded as "technology".
> 
> Am I right?


I have never heard of an adjective having a virtual subject, but _usable_ means something like "that can be used", which is a passive construction. Any connection between the common adjective _available_ and the rare verb _avail_ is historical.


----------



## discernment tan

Again the name "Virtual Subject" is irrelevant to express adjective.
I wanted to mean, when used in a sentence like, "Technology is available (or usable)", technology is the subject and available is the subject complement. 

"I am glad to see you. "

"I" is the subject, glad is the subject complement, and "to see you (advervial)" modifies "glad" and the VS of "to see you" is the same as the subject of the sentence "Subject(I)+Verb+Complement".


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> "I am glad to see you. "


Here "to see you" is adverbial but is not an adverbial of purpose.


----------



## discernment tan

Forero said:


> Here "to see you" is adverbial but is not an adverbial of purpose.


That's right.
But basically the VS of "to infinitive" is the same as the ①adjective's (complement's) subject or the ②noun that is modified by the adjective.

①　ex) Technology is available to aid in auditing. I am happy to see you.
②　ex) I introduced the technology available to aid in auditing.


----------



## Edinburgher

While the virtual subject of "to fall" is certainly "moisture", I believe that "transportation" is not the virtual subject of "to get (to a clinic)".

You can say that the transportation (if it were available) could get them (the majority of people) to a clinic.  In that case, "transportation" would indeed be the virtual subject:  It would get them to a clinic.

But the quoted sentence does not have the object pronoun "them" in it.  Therefore I'd be inclined to interpret the sentence as having those people as the virtual subject:  There is no other transportation with which *they* can get to a clinic.  "They" is the subject, and transportation is the means by which they can get (themselves) to a clinic.


----------



## discernment tan

Edinburgher said:


> While the virtual subject of "to fall" is certainly "moisture", I believe that "transportation" is not the virtual subject of "to get (to a clinic)".
> 
> You can say that the transportation (if it were available) could get them (the majority of people) to a clinic.  In that case, "transportation" would indeed be the virtual subject:  It would get them to a clinic.
> 
> But the quoted sentence does not have the object pronoun "them" in it.  Therefore I'd be inclined to interpret the sentence as having those people as the virtual subject:  There is no other transportation with which *they* can get to a clinic.  "They" is the subject, and transportation is the means by which they can get (themselves) to a clinic.


Yes. I think so, too. What do you think about the sentence? Badly written?


----------



## Edinburgher

discernment tan said:


> What do you think about the sentence? Badly written?


Let's remind ourselves what the sentence is:


> For the majority of people, no other transportation (than a bicycle) is easily available to get to a clinic.


To call it badly written would be too harsh a judgement.  I'd agree that it isn't grammatically perfect.  It could be improved in a variety of ways.  Here are some of them:

One could add the preposition "with" after "clinic".
One could insert "with which" after "available".
One could change "to" to "with which they can".
One could insert "them" after "get".

It doesn't really matter what the virtual subject of "get" is (transportation or the people) so long as the basic idea is clear.


----------



## discernment tan

Thank you very much.
I think I understand this.


----------



## discernment tan

Thank you all. Now I am fully satisfied owing to your contribution.


----------



## discernment tan

Some internal audit functions have implemented cosourcing to assist with cyber assessment;

What word is the "virtual subject" of "to assist"?
Is this sentence correct?


----------



## Forero

discernment tan said:


> Some internal audit functions have implemented cosourcing to assist with cyber assessment;
> 
> What word is the "virtual subject" of "to assist"?
> Is this sentence correct?


It is grammatical but ambiguous. I think the most likely reading is "to" = "in order to", with "some internal audit functions" as the virtual subject. But, in that case, who or what is the virtual object?


----------



## discernment tan

Forero said:


> But, in that case, who or what is the virtual object?


That's my point. It seems to be "themselves", but usually the object cannot be "themselves" without the word "themselves", I think. 

This "to assist" sentence is in the same article as the "to aid" sentence below, which I mentioned before.

Auditors should consider using technology available to the organization *to aid* in execution of audit activities.

The author might have the tendency to use ambiguous "aid" or "assist" like these.


----------



## lingobingo

If you try to find examples of “virtual subject” online, you soon find that the term is used mainly in esoteric disciplines such as literary theory, deconstruction, post-modernism.

So it’s probably worth pointing out that the concept of a grammatical “virtual subject” is alien to the vast majority of native English speakers. And even if pressed into saying what they thought it might mean, they’d probably guess the dummy *it* or existential *there* (as used in constructions such as _it’s late_ or _there’s nothing wrong_).

A non-finite construction such as the infinitive phrase “to aid in [the] execution of cyber activities” would normally be classed as an adverbial of purpose. And in your sentence that purpose would be ascribed to the use of available technology.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> If you try to find examples of “virtual subject” online, you soon find that the term is used mainly in esoteric disciplines such as literary theory, deconstruction, post-modernism.
> 
> So it’s probably worth pointing out that the concept of a grammatical “virtual subject” is alien to the vast majority of native English speakers. And even if pressed into saying what they thought it might mean, they’d probably guess the dummy *it* or existential *there* (as used in constructions such as _it’s late_ or _there’s nothing wrong_).
> 
> A non-finite construction such as the infinitive phrase “to aid in [the] execution of cyber activities” would normally be classed as an adverbial of purpose. And in your sentence that purpose would be ascribed to the use of available technology.


A key component in designing a research project is identifying particular concerns or issues ( ).
① to address *② to arise* ③ to bring ④ to come up
*⑤ not to remain unclear*

So you mean ⑤ can fit?

How about ⑥ to be clear.


----------



## lingobingo

No. I mean nothing of the kind. The answer to that would be 1 – identifying issues to address.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> No. I mean nothing of the kind. The answer to that would be 1 – identifying issues to address.





lingobingo said:


> And even if pressed into saying what they thought it might mean, they’d probably guess the dummy *it* or existential *there* (as used in constructions such as _it’s late_ or _there’s nothing wrong_).



A key component in designing a research project is identifying particular concerns or issues [to become clear]. /[not to remain unclear]./ [to go identified] 

I thought, according to your concept, the sentence above is grammatically correct, because it's purpose can be inferred while the virtual subject remains "concerns or issues".

Could you think of any grammatically correct phrase in which the virtual subject is "concerns or issues"?


----------



## lingobingo

What sentence? Which version of it do you mean? I’ve already told you the only one that works, and it’s none of those.

identifying particular issues *to address* = that one needs to address​identifying those issues that need to be addressed​
The whole idea that everything has a “virtual subject” is alien to me (see #68).


----------



## discernment tan

Please assume that the definition of the "virtual subject" is "what or who did the verb in the infinitive".

A key component in designing a research project is identifying particular concerns or issues ( ).
① to address *② to arise* ③ to bring ④ to come up

We consider ② and ④ incorrect because "concerns or issues" should be the "object" of the infinitive.

Who addresses it? The person who designs.
What arrises? Concerns or issues.
What comes up? Concerns or issues.

But your opinion is different in that you say this is because ② and ④ are not the infinitive of purpose.
So I asked you *make* any correct infinitive phrase in which the virtual subject is still "concerns or issues" while the infinitive shows the purpose of the person who designs a research.

I am *not* now asking you to choose the correct answer among the four.


----------



## lingobingo

I can’t make head or tail of your thinking.


----------



## discernment tan

Simply, can you think of any correct infinitive phrase under the *conditions* below?

I identified particular issues to ( ).

*Conditions;* 
1. "The issues" do the verb in the ( ), like "The issues arise", unlike "I address the issue".
2. "The infinitive shows the purpose of "I", the subject of the sentence.

"I identified particular issues to become clear" satisfies these two conditions, but I think you say this is incorrect. Why?


----------



## lingobingo

Same comment.


----------



## discernment tan

I think Ferero, who seems to be a native speaker, seems to understand my point, but you don't. Why?


----------



## Edinburgher

In the clause "identifying issues to address", the words "issues to address" form a complete noun phrase (the meaning of which is "issues that (someone) needs to address"), and this noun phrase is the direct object of the verb "identify".  I would say that if you really want to find the virtual subject of 'address', it is the same as that of 'identify(ing)', namely the researchers.

The problem is, though, that this structure doesn't make sense (or at least doesn't have a corresponding meaning) if you change 'address' to 'arise'.  If you want the sentence to mean "issues that may arise", you can't use the "issues to arise" structure.  Why not?  Well, just because we don't use it; it's not idiomatic.


----------



## discernment tan

Edinburgher said:


> In the clause "identifying issues to address", the words "issues to address" form a complete noun phrase (the meaning of which is "issues that (someone) needs to address"), and this noun phrase is the direct object of the verb "identify".  I would say that if you really want to find the virtual subject of 'address', it is the same as that of 'identify(ing)', namely the researchers.
> 
> The problem is, though, that this structure doesn't make sense (or at least doesn't have a corresponding meaning) if you change 'address' to 'arise'.  If you want the sentence to mean "issues that may arise", you can't use the "issues to arise" structure.  Why not?  Well, just because we don't use it; it's not idiomatic.


Now I can understand your point.
Now I am asking;

Simply, can you think of any correct infinitive phrase under the *conditions* below?

I identified particular issues to ( ).

*Conditions;*
1. "The issues" do the verb in the ( ), like "The issues arise", unlike "I address the issue".
2. "The infinitive shows the purpose of "I", the subject of the sentence.

"I identified particular issues to become clear" satisfies these two conditions, but I think you say this is incorrect. Why?


----------



## lingobingo

They’re not conditions. The first one is just a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of how the sentence works. The issues don’t do anything themselves. Something thing needs to be done to or about them – they need to be addressed/dealt with. But all the sentence is conveying is that [the process of] identifying issues that need to be addressed/dealt with is a key component in the design of a research project. There is no implied doer of the action, nor is there any need for one in such a statement.


----------



## discernment tan

lingobingo said:


> They’re not conditions. The first one is just a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of how the sentence works. The issues don’t do anything themselves. Something thing needs to be done to or about them – they need to be addressed/dealt with. But all the sentence is conveying is that [the process of] identifying issues that need to be addressed/dealt with is a key component in the design of a research project. There is no implied doer of the action, nor is there any need for one in such a statement.


Issues do arise.


----------



## lingobingo

Not in that statement.

It would have made perfect sense as “identifying particular concerns or issues *as they arise*”, but you can’t say that with the infinitive.


----------



## discernment tan

So I am asking if you can think of any other verb (or infinitive phrase) that can fit in the parentheses.

to become clear
to seem concrete


----------



## lingobingo

No.


----------



## Edinburgher

discernment tan said:


> 2. "The infinitive shows the purpose of "I", the subject of the sentence.


Could this be part of your misunderstanding?  "To address the issues" is not the purpose of "I", it is the purpose of "identifying them".


discernment tan said:


> "I identified particular issues to become clear" satisfies these two conditions, but I think you say this is incorrect. Why?


It doesn't work with "become clear" for the same reason it doesn't work with "arise".  We just don't use the infinitive structure in this way.


----------



## discernment tan

Edinburgher said:


> Could this be part of your misunderstanding?  "To address the issues" is not the purpose of "I", it is the purpose of "identifying them".
> 
> It doesn't work with "become clear" for the same reason it doesn't work with "arise".  We just don't use the infinitive structure in this way.


Yes!!! That's exactly what I originally thought.
My purpose is to find out if the two sentences below are grammatically correct or not.

①　Auditors consider using technology available to the organization to aid in execution of audit activities.
②　Some internal audit functions have implemented cosourcing to assist with cyber assessment.

I suspected that these sentence are incorrect for the same reason as "arise" or "become clear".

Lingo Bingo said, I think, this kind of ambiguity is accepted.
Ferero said ① is correct because "to aid" modifies "available", not "consider" nor "use".
In other words, it is accepted because of the combination with "available", which I thought the most logical explanation.
However, after that I found the sentence ②.
I still wonder if this ② is correct.


----------



## lingobingo

discernment tan said:


> Lingo Bingo said, I think, this kind of ambiguity is accepted.


----------

