119. BE before a “to” Verb

.

Placing “is” (or other form of BE) directly before a verb with “to” can express various meanings

GRAMMATICAL FORMS AFTER be

Verbs with to – infinitives – are not the commonest kind of wording after the verb BE. More typical are participles (adjective-like -ed and -ing verbs), nouns, adjectives and noun-like -ing verbs (gerunds).

Like all of these except the first, infinitives after BE are a kind of “complement” (see 220. Features of Complements). They can express at least nine different meanings. Most are possible with all forms of BE, but a few allow only some. This post presents and compares different meanings that an infinitive can have in English when placed after BE.

A reader of this blog once requested a complete survey of infinitive usage in English. Unfortunately, this is not possible because of the Guinlist policy of concentrating on more advanced and exotic aspects of grammar. However, there are numerous other posts besides this one with information about infinitives, including:

35. Words Followed by “to -ing”
60. Purpose Sentences with “for”
78. Infinitive versus Preposition after Nouns
83. Adjectives before a “to” Verb
105. Questions with a “to” Verb
148. Infinitive Verbs without “to”
208. Verbs with an Object + Infinitive
239. Nouns Combined with a “to” Verb
299. Infinitives after a Passive Verb
302. Verbs with a Partner Infinitive

.

INFINITIVES THAT MAY FOLLOW ANY FORM OF be

The role of infinitives in this category usually seems recognizable from the wording before BE.

1. Purpose Naming

A purpose is a future outcome that living beings seek to achieve (see 60. Purpose Sentences with “for”). Examples of an infinitive after BE naming a purpose are:

(a) The purpose of having speed cameras is to prevent road accidents.

(b) The prize is to attract more customers.

In (a), the subject of BE includes the word purpose, thus leaving no doubt that the infinitive is naming a purpose.

Other purpose-indicating words include aim, intention, intent, motive, objective, plan and target. For grammatical information about aim, see 226. Words with Complicated Grammar 2, #3. For aim versus intention, see 114. Tricky Word Contrasts 3, #5; for intention versus intent, see 195. Tricky Word Contrasts 7, #2); and for motive versus motivation, see 276. Tricky Word Contrasts 11, #2.

The word having in (a) clearly attributes the purpose to human beings. Often, however, there is no such word, so that the purpose seems to be attributed to a non-living thing. However, a word like purpose will still indicate that the purpose really exists in human minds.

Sentence (b), on the other hand, shows that a word like purpose is not always needed in the subject of BE for the idea of purpose to be understood. Instead, this idea can be indicated by the common ability of to verbs to express purpose, plus the logical possibility that a purpose is being expressed – in this case based on the idea that prizes can be, and often are, used for the purpose of attracting customers.

A problem with sentences like (b), however, is that their lack of any clear purpose-suggesting word, combined with the variety of other possible meanings of BE + infinitive, can create double meanings. Thus, sentence (b) itself could be understood as saying that attracting more customers was the prize itself rather than its purpose (see #6 below). For more about double meanings, see 124. Structures with a Double Meaning 1.

.

2. Function Naming

Functions resemble purposes in being possible outcomes, but they do not have to be a target in the mind of a living creature – they are more like facts than hopes or desires. A typical function sentence might be:

(c) The function of chlorophyll is to convert inorganic substances into organic ones.

Here, chlorophyll has no conscious purpose and is not being used as a human tool like speed cameras in (a).

Function statements do not always have to involve non-living things:

(d) The function of doctors is to cure or alleviate human sickness.

The meaning here is different from what it would be with function replaced by purpose: information is given about what doctors normally do but not about what doctors themselves are trying to achieve – their purpose. This might be the same as their function, but it could also be completely different – to have a comfortable life, for example, or to be popular.

Function statements with BE TO seem to need a special word like function or role near the start to assist their recognition.

.

3. Means Naming

A means is an action undertaken in order to achieve a purpose. It is most usually expressed with by -ing (see 73. Prepositions for Saying How and 101. Add-On Participles). After BE, however, a to verb is also possible:

(e) The best way to learn a language is to live / by living amongst its speakers.

When BE is the verb in this way, the subject will normally include a noun equivalent of how, such as solution, way or method (see 185. Noun Synonyms of Question Words). The verb directly after way (to learn) can be of -ing instead of an infinitive. For the difference, see 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts, #1.

.

4. Arrangement Relaying

An arrangement is an action that two or more people have agreed to perform together at a particular future time. To “relay” one is to say what it is without also creating it (see 238. Using a Verb to Perform its Action). Examples are:

(f) A meeting of finance ministers is to be held in Brussels.

(g) The armies were to converge on the plain at midday.

The arrangement may be for the actual future, as in (f), or a past one, as in (g). In both cases, going could precede to (see examples #a and #b in 302. Verbs with a Partner Infinitive).

BE TO is not the only way of relaying arrangements – putting the other verb into the present continuous tense (is being held and were converging above) is an alternative (see 147. Types of Future Meaning). With BE TO there is perhaps a suggestion that the mentioned people are not the primary makers of the arrangement, but still have contributed enough to rule out the use of HAVE TO (see 129. Differences between Necessity Verbs).

The main clues to the existence of arrangement-relaying with BE TO seem to be (I) the naming of the arrangement’s participants within the subject of the sentence, (II) ability of the subject to carry out the infinitive verb’s action, and (III) ease of arranging the infinitive verb’s action. Sentences (f), (g) and (h) meet all of these conditions. Sentence (k) below fails on (II) (a task cannot gather data), while Sentences (b) above and (m) below fail on (III) (attracting people and becoming an emperor are not easily arranged).

.

5. Command Relaying

Relayed commands are quite similar to relayed arrangements:

(h) All visitors are to report to Reception.

This command could also be given with must, more strongly suggesting that the speaker was the creator of the command, rather than somebody more distant. Must perhaps also increases the imperiousness of the command: the association of BE TO with arrangements may suggest that a command with it is a consensus rather than the will of one person.

.

6. Consequence Naming

Sentences of this kind have an infinitive verb before BE as well as after:

(i) To think is to exist.

The meaning of the subject of (i) (to think) is not being identified or clarified by the later infinitive in the way illustrated in the next section. Instead, a consequence of it is being indicated by the later infinitive: (i) could be paraphrased as If you think, you exist. Here is a further example:

(j) To climb Everest is to join a very select group.

.

7. Defining

An infinitive before BE sometimes causes one after to be defining rather than naming a consequence:

(k) To freeze is to be changed by heat reduction from liquid to solid.

For more about definitions, see 286. Repeating in Different Words, #1.

.

8. Specifying

In this use, the infinitive spells out in more detail what the subject of the verb represents: the sentence is of the kind considered in detail in this blog in 117. Restating Generalizations More Specifically. However, the subject that is being specified must represent something involving or capable of action or change, since that is what the to verb normally expresses. A typical example is:

(l) The task is to gather data.

A task is obviously something that necessarily involves action. Other general action-indicating nouns that a to verb could specify include aim, alternative, challenge, effect, intention, next step, plan, problem, procedure, result and strategy.

The above-mentioned uses of BE TO for naming a purpose, function or means are also probably subdivisions of this wider category: their subjects are very similarly specified, unlike the subjects of (f), (g) and (h).

.

INFINITIVES THAT FOLLOW A SPECIFIC FORM OF be

Two common meanings in this category could be called unlikely future and destiny in the past.

9. Unlikely Future

This is the use of were to after if (see the end of 118. Problems with Conditional “if”), as in this sentence:

(m) If aliens were to visit the earth, great excitement would prevail.

The suggestion here is that the future arrival of aliens is very unlikely. Futures that have a less definite unlikelihood tend to be expressed with the past simple tense after if, and would with the other verb; while futures with an open likelihood need the present simple after if and another verb with will (see 179. Deeper Meanings of “if”).

The word were is the only form of BE allowed for showing a very unlikely future. It must even be used when its subject is singular: it is not the usual were but the special one known as the “subjunctive”, which never changes (see Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #6).

.

10. Destiny in the Past

This kind of sentence also needs a past tense BE form, e.g.:

(n) Augustus was to become Emperor six years later.

The infinitive here expresses a past event that was a future for the indicated person. Was to is similar in meaning to the slightly less formal was/were going to (see 182. Structures with a Double Meaning 2, #1).

This sentence type also resembles sentences like (g), which name an arranged future in the past, but one which may or may not have actually occurred. Indeed, only context or logic can clarify whether a destiny or arrangement is meant (see 282. Features of History Writing, #2).

It is logic, for example, that suggests (n) is not expressing an arrangement. As mentioned above, arranging to become an emperor is not easily achieved, especially six years beforehand.

Destiny statements sometimes have about before to. This indicates an immediate future that can, with a following when…, become negative (see 269. Exotic Grammar Structures 7, #6):

(o) The Prince was about to become King when he was murdered.

Negative futures can also be shown with BE + never to (see 269. Exotic Grammar Structures 7, #2).

118. Problems with Conditional “if”

.

If copper is heated, it expands

Writing conditional sentences with “if” can cause a variety of common language errors

FEATURES OF CONDITIONAL “if”

Most grammar descriptions have plenty to say about conditional if, but they often simply present its associated subtle meaning differences and rather complicated word combinations without highlighting many of the common errors that these can give to writers whose mother tongue is not English. In this post I wish to focus wholly on various errors that the use of conditional if can cause, and to offer information that might help them to be avoided.

To facilitate the analysis of the problems, it will be useful to appreciate the main properties of if sentences. Consider this example:

(a) If copper is heated, it expands.

The underlined parts are verbs. Two are usually needed with if, establishing it as a conjunction (see 174. Eight Things to Know about Conjunctions). The verb with if can come first, as here, or second, with if in the middle of the sentence (see 25. Conjunction Positioning). A starting if may be followed immediately by ever (see 272. Uses of “Ever”, #4), or later on by then (see 64. Double Conjunctions).

The action or state of the if verb is a “condition” for the action or state of the other verb. This means it has two properties. Firstly, it is needed before the action or state of the other verb can happen or exist – this other verb expresses a consequence of the if verb. Secondly, the action or state of the if verb is hypothetical – its occurrence is not definite like many of the causes in the post 32. Expressing Consequences. For more on this difference, see the end of 61. “Since” versus “Because”. For a use where the condition meaning is obscured, see 247. Exotic Grammar Structures 6, #2.

The tenses of the two verbs can be changed in various ways in order to express different meanings. In most cases, both of the verbs have to be changed together. I do not propose to list all of the possibilities because they are easily found in mainstream grammar descriptions. However, as an example, expands above can be changed to will expand, in order to show that the speaker is not just reporting a generally-recognised rule, but is in wholehearted agreement with it, making it almost like a prediction (see 147. Types of Future Meaning, #1). Unusually, this particular change does not require the other verb to be changed.

.

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITIONAL “if”

1. Similarity of “if” to “in case”

In American English, in case is often the same as future-referring if. In British English, they refer to the future in different ways:

(b) Paracetamol may be administered if the patient becomes feverish.

(c) No visitors are allowed in case they contract the virus.

In (b), the event after if happens before the other event in the sentence, and is a hypothetical cause; whereas in (c) the event after in case happens after, and is an unwanted hypothetical result. In case means “to prepare for the undesirable possibility that…” (see 100. What is a Grammar Error?).

If and in case can both be paraphrased with a preposition (in the event of and in case of : see 205. Paraphrasing Prepositions with Words of Other Kinds). For example sentences with these, see 48. Tricky Word Contrasts 1, #10.

.

2. Similarity of “if” to “whether”

If resembles whether in two different ways. Firstly, the two words are often (but not always) interchangeable in indirect questions, e.g.:

(d) Nobody knows if/whether the stars can ever be reached.

This, of course, is a different use of if from the conditional one. For more about it, see 57. Indirect Questions in Formal Writing.

Secondly, both if and whether can be paired with a subsequent or to introduce condition-like ideas. The difference is that these ideas are true conditions when placed after if, but are often denied conditions after whether. Consider this example from 99. When to Use whether… or…:

(e) Whether they won or lost, the children received a prize.

This means that all of the children were given a prize – neither winning nor losing was a condition for one. You have to use whether and not if here because won and lost cover all of the possible conditions. If implies the existence of other possible conditions.

.

3. Similarity of “if” to “when”

Some languages have a single word for both if and when (the German and Dutch word is actually spelled like when, causing its overuse in English). When lacks the hypothetical part of the meaning of if – the possibility of the non-existence of the event or state that it introduces.

Consider sentence (b) again. The presence of if suggests that the patient may never become feverish at all. Replace it with when, however, and future feverishness becomes expected. The same difference exists in most of the other if sentences above, and also with if and when after (dis)like it or similar (see 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 1, #3).

However, some sentences are not so greatly affected by when replacing if. Most seem to be timeless generalizations (see 179. Deeper Meanings of “if”, “Open Conditions”). Sentence (a) above, for example, is a generalization where saying when copper is heated…instead of if… makes almost no difference. An example of a past-time generalization is:

(f) Excursions were cancelled if/when the weather was bad.

Both if and when here imply that the weather was sometimes bad. If there is a difference, it may be that when implies a more frequent occasional occurrence.

.

4. Similarity of “even if” to “even though”

Even conveys surprise. The choice between if and though depends on degree of hypotheticality, just as with if versus when, if being the more hypothetical. Consider this:

(g) The children received a prize even if they failed.

If again suggests that failing did not always occur – some children succeeded. Replacing if with though, however, would mean all of the children failed. The sentence would then be “concessive” rather than “conditional”, closer to the use of although than if.

A common error with even is to use it with if instead of though. Consider this further example:

(h) Even … chickens have wings, they cannot fly.

If here would leave it undecided whether chickens have wings, whereas though would imply they do. Since most people know that chickens have wings, using if would be strange (though not impossible). In general, even if leaves unconfirmed the reality of the action or situation after it.

.

5. Use of “will” and “would” after “if”

Many learners of English incorrectly use will and would after if like this:

(i) *If guests will arrive at 6, they will eat at 7.

(j) *If the earth would not be tilted, seasons would not exist.

In general, will and would cannot follow if unless they mean “agree to” (if you would come this way, …) or “insist on” (if you will keep complaining, …). The correct verb forms above are arrive and was not tilted.

.

6. Unusual Possibilities

One unusual possibility is an imperative verb instead of if. For details, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #3.

Secondly, if with a past tense verb alongside a would statement does not always have the commonly-taught suggestion of an “unreal” event or situation that the following illustrate:

(k) If Greenland had a warmer climate, more people would live there.

(l) If a meteor had not struck the earth, the dinosaurs would have survived.

These are “unreal” because we understand a negative meaning of the verb after if: that Greenland does not have a warmer climate, and a meteor did not not strike (i.e. it did strike) earth. This negativity is indicated by the tense of the two verbs: further in the past than would normally be expected.

Other examples of unreal verb usage in this blog are after as if (see 191. Exotic Grammar Structures 3, #3), after wish that and if only (see 251. The Grammar of “Only”, #1), and in questions starting What if…? (see 274. Questions with a Hidden Meaning, #2) and Would you mind…? (see 297. Types of Response to a Question, #3).

The unusual possibility with this structure is a real event after if:

(m) If the city was threatened, the Athenians would call an Assembly.

In a past-time context, this means the city was sometimes threatened, and then an Assembly was called. The sentence is the same kind as (f) above, with if similar to when, merely expressing less inevitability of occurrence. This meaning is possible because both of the verbs express a repeatable event – unlike the ones in (k) – and would can have a “used to” meaning instead of the normal conditional one.

The same unusual meaning is possible in some sentences with a had verb after if, but only in combination with would rather than would have:

(n) If it had rained, the wall would glisten.

Here, two different uses of would can again be understood. With conditional would, had rained is unreal, saying no rain has recently fallen because the wall does not now glisten. With the historical use (= “used to”), had rained means rain sometimes fell in the past, and after that the wall used to glisten. The reason why the conditional would is not would have, the most typical form alongside an unreal had verb, is that had rained here is related not to the past simple tense rained, but to the present perfect has rained – a tense closer to being “present” than “past”.

A third unusual possibility is were to after if. It refers to the future like the present simple tense in sentences such as (e), but it suggests strong unlikelihood of happening (see 119. BE Before a “to” Verb, #7). The other verb needs would, not will. An example is:

(o) If the guests were to arrive at 6, they would eat at 7.

Speakers of other languages than English need to be especially careful in sentences like this to avoid saying would instead of were to. Note also that were is often preferred to was even after a singular noun. When this happens, were is a rare unchanging form called a “subjunctive”. For some other situations when a subjunctive verb is possible, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #6.

117. Restating Generalizations More Specifically

There are many ways to first describe something in general terms and then say precisely what it is

HOW IDEAS CAN BE EXPRESSED BOTH GENERALLY & MORE SPECIFICALLY

Professional writers often like to mention something in general terms before restating it more precisely. There are numerous ways of doing so. Some are considered elsewhere within these pages: example-giving involves more precise restatement of only some of the general idea (see 1. Simple Example-Giving), while some forms of listing restate all of it with a list (for various posts on this, see 54. Sentence Lists 1: Incidental).

An alternative to both of these is restatement that fully equals the general idea without being a list. Here are some examples (restatements underlined):

(a) Africa has great wealth potential. It possesses enough fertile land to feed itself and other countries.

(b) The future of South America is to become very rich.

(c) There is a workable strategy for reducing traffic: road charges.

It is combinations like these that I wish to focus on in this post. I call them “identification” because they clarify which of various less general possibilities the generalization is referring to. They do not clarify the general idea with one of equal generality, as happens with definitions and naming statements (see 286. Repeating in Different Words).

In (a), the more precise restatement is in a new sentence, whereas in (b) and (c) it is not. This ability of a meaning to occupy either a single sentence or at least two is not unusual in English: it is also illustrated in this blog in posts like 33. Complex Example-Giving and 162. Writing about Classifications.

.

IDENTIFICATION IN TWO SENTENCES

When the two parts of an identification are in neighbouring sentences, the identification as a whole is an example of a “relation” between the sentences (see 18. Relations Between Sentences). As with most such relations, no special language is required to show that identification is present – it is usually clear just from the kinds of ideas involved, in this case a general idea in the first sentence and a more precise equivalent in the second.

What is unusual about the relation of identification, however, is that it is not normally able to be made clearer with connectors or connector synonyms; such words – seemingly available for identification in many other languages – do not appear to exist in English. This characteristic means that many writers whose mother tongue is not English are likely to insert an incorrect connector like in fact, indeed or in particular into the second sentence (see 20. Problem Connectors). The closest equivalent to an identification connector in English is perhaps there + BE at the start of the first sentence, similar to the use in sentence (c) above (see 161. Special Uses of “There” Sentences, #2).

A common use of two-sentence identification is for describing a similarity or difference. The first sentence typically states the existence of one, and the next says what it is (see 149. Saying How Things are Similar and 216. Indicating Differences). A similar approach is possible for describing consequences and exceptions (see 32. Expressing Consequences and 215. Naming Exceptions).

In reading, a lack of experience with identifications can make them quite difficult to recognise. In the following example, what general idea in the first sentence is being expressed more precisely in the second?

(d) Gestures were a crucial stage in the development of language, but what they lack is any ‘manipulative’ element. All languages, including sign language, require the organizing and combining of sounds or signs in specific constructions.

The second sentence here identifies the exact kind of ‘manipulative’ element that the writer means (organizing and combining…). The key to recognising identifications like this without difficulty is practice – reading as widely as possible.

.

IDENTIFICATION IN A SINGLE SENTENCE

Most identification seems to be of this kind. There seem to be three major ways of including a general idea and its more precise equivalent together in the same sentence: placing the verb BE between them, placing a colon between them, and placing nothing between them.

1. Linking with BE

This kind of identification may be illustrated as follows:

(e) The first Roman Emperor was Augustus Caesar.

(b) The future of South America is to become very rich.

(f) The lesson of history is that poverty breeds violence.

In sentences like this, the more general expression is the subject of BE (everything before it in these examples) and the more precise equivalent is the complement (everything after). The equivalence is an exact one: the subject does not have a narrower meaning than the complement. To give it such a meaning is to create a description or classification instead of an identification (see 162. Writing about Classifications).

The complement is mostly either noun-like or, after certain subjects, a modified verb, sometimes with to as in (b) (see 119. BE before a “to” Verb), sometimes with that as in (f) (see 153. Conjunction Uses of “that”).

.

2. Linking with a Colon

This way of identifying is shown in the following examples:

(c) There is a workable strategy for reducing traffic: road charges.

(g) A promising future awaits South America: it will become very rich.

Nothing other than the colon comes between the initial general description and subsequent precise identification. Note that, as with BE, identifications are not the only kind of information that can be found after a colon: reasons are one common alternative (see 17. Colons versus Semi-Colons).

A key feature of colon identification is that the more general words before the colon must also be able to stand alone and unchanged as a complete sentence. This is not the case with BE identification as illustrated in (b), (e) and (f). A similarity to BE identifications, however, is the ability of the second, more precise part to be either a simple noun expression – road charges in (c) – or an ordinary statement, as in (g). In the latter case, the colon is the joining device allowing the new verb will become to be in the old sentence, corresponding to that after BE.

For more about sentences like (c), see 161. Special Uses of “There” Sentences, #2.

.

3. Linking with Nothing

A general expression can be linked to its more precise equivalent without any special language in between:

(h) The first Roman Emperor(,) Augustus Caesar(,) reigned at the time of Christ.

(i) A Beatle, John Lennon, was killed in 1980.

(j) The Beatle John Lennon was killed in 1980.

The grammatical structure here is “apposition”, two consecutive noun expressions that each refer to the same thing (see 77. Pairing of Same-Meaning Nouns). There are various types, but the typical one expressing an identification comprises a descriptive noun phrase followed by one saying what it describes.

Sometimes in this kind of apposition, the equivalence between the two noun expressions is exact, and sometimes it is not. In (h) it is exact: the descriptive first Roman Emperor cannot refer to anyone other than the identified person Augustus Caesar. In (i) and (j), however, Beatle does not always equate exactly to the second noun John Lennon but has a wider meaning, since it can refer to any of the three other Beatles.

Exact-equivalence sentences, as illustrated by (h), sometimes have two commas around the second noun expression. These seem desirable if the reader’s familiarity with the link between the two nouns is not expected to be very strong, so that the identifying is quite similar to naming (see 206. Ways of Conveying a Name). Commas seem less likely if this familiarity is expected to be very great, making the identification more of a reminder.

With inexact equivalences, commas are compulsory if the wider-meaning first noun – Beatle in sentence (i) – has a. However, a wider-meaning first noun with the, like Beatle in (j), cannot have commas. Adding them would give the a different meaning, referring back to a previous mention of a Beatle, not forward to John Lennon. The absence of commas is similar to that with the relative pronoun who (see 34. Relative Pronouns and Commas).

Where commas are present – i.e. sometimes in sentences like (h) and always in ones like (i) – the word namely can be added before the second noun (…, namely Augustus Caesar, …). Sentences like (i) also allow specifically. Without commas, however, no extra wording can be inserted. It is not allowed even when sentences like (h) and (j) have a pair of plural noun expressions instead of two singular ones (see 309. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 5, #1). Any temptation to add such as must be resisted – using it is a common error. For a detailed explanation of the correct use of such as, see 53. “As”, “Like” and “Such As”.

Sentences like (j), where commas are not possible, do actually allow the to be dropped before the first noun expression in one special case. This is when the first noun is, like Beatle, a description of a person. Dropping the is part of an informal style typical of newspapers (see 166. Appropriacy in Professional English).