247. Exotic Grammar Structures 6

.

Some English grammar structures are unlikely to be described in language coursebooks

THE NATURE OF “EXOTIC” STRUCTURES

English has plenty of grammar structures that are not commonly found in language coursebooks, so that they could be called “exotic”. Some structures are of this kind because they have not been clearly identified by grammarians. Many others are ignored by course designers because they are rare: there is usually insufficient space to cover the whole of English grammar, and the more common structures are preferred in the belief that this will give learners the greatest chance of success in future communication.

However, structures that are not commonly found in language-learning coursebooks can still be useful to know, especially for English users with a more advanced competence, who are the target audience of this blog. It is in this belief that posts like the present one are offered. Six exotic structures are described below. To access the other posts, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1.

.

LIST OF STRUCTURES

1. “Only” + Sequence Infinitive

EXAMPLE

Many people invested all their savings, only to see everything lost.

Sequence Infinitives are considered in detail in these pages in the post before this (246. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 2, #5). They are usually added to the end of a possible independent sentence so that the two together paraphrase a when sentence whose two verbs have the same subject. Without this meaning, a sentence-end infinitive is likely to express a purpose.

Both purpose and sequence infinitives can have only in front. Before the former, only has its usual meaning of “not more than” (see 251. The Grammar of “Only”). However, with a sequence infinitive only marks the event after it as unexpected and unwanted – like losing invested savings. A grammatical feature of sequence infinitives after only is that they are more able than ordinary ones to have a subject different from that of the verb before. They do this by means of a for phrase in front, e.g. …only for everything to be lost above.

Sometimes, moreover, paraphrase with a when sentence is not so easy:

(a) Beware of purchasing expensive equipment, only to have it stolen.

.

2. Comparisons Using “If”

EXAMPLE

If boring the tunnels was expensive, constructing the railway almost bankrupted investors.

Sentences of this kind name something about a person or thing that is more extreme than something about them already known to be extreme. If at the start introduces the already-known lesser of the two extremes. Thus, the above sentence says that the established extreme expense of boring the tunnels was exceeded by the even greater expense of constructing the railway. As a result, the addressee should clearly appreciate the enormity of the second idea, the focus of the sentence.

It is possible in the second half to use a comparative word, e.g. …was much more so above instead of bankrupted investors. However, the ability of the construction to make comparatives unnecessary is usually exploited because it allows more colourful descriptions. Here is another example:

(b) If aeroplane journeys excite, space travel promises to be thrilling.

In this case, a word in the second half (thrilling) says the same as one in the first (excite) but more strongly. A similar effect is possible with adjective pairs like large/huge and important/essential (see 16. Ways of Distinguishing Similar Words, #3).

If in these sentences does not appear to have its usual “conditional” meaning: there is no suggestion that the event described after it is either hypothetical (= not definitely true) or a cause (two key features identified in 118. Problems with Conditional “If”). Yet I think a condition is involved. Many sentences like the above begin If you think…, and I feel these words are still implied when they are absent. The consequence of this condition is again implied: something like you would have to say… . These implications make the sentences about one occasion rather than many, so that when cannot replace if (see 179. Deeper Meanings of “if”).

.

3. “The” + Superlative Adjective + “of” + Plural Noun

EXAMPLE

August is not the best of times to look for a job.

Here, the best of times illustrates one of three ways in which a superlative adjective, such as best, can describe a following noun. The other two are illustrated by the familiar the best time(s) (without of and with a singular / plural noun choice) and the best of the times (with of the). Note the need for a plural noun when of is present (see 305. Wording next to Superlatives, #4). It means uncountable nouns are not usable except those made countable to express a type (e.g. the worst of fuels – see 23. Subtypes).

I think the meaning difference between the three uses is degrees of definiteness. Superlative adjectives imply a comparison between something they are describing and at least two other members of the same category. Thus, (the time of) August in the example is being compared with various other times during the year. Of all the three structures, the -est of the… makes a comparison with the most definite other category members: very clearly visualised, probably through a recent mention, and unlikely to be very numerous. It is the second the in this combination that does most to convey this meaning.

After this, the -est…. is slightly less definite: the other category members are still assumed to be strongly visualised, but perhaps more as a result of general knowledge than explicit indication, and can be more numerous. This meaning is still quite close to that of the -est of the….

With the -est of -s a comparison is made with a much less definite group – times in the example sentence does not suggest clearly-recognisable times in the way that the other two combinations do.

These differences are all subjective: speakers themselves have to judge how specific a group they are comparing something with.

.

4. Noun + “of” + Possessive + “own”

EXAMPLE

Members may contribute work of their own.

Many readers will be familiar with the contrast between Einstein’s theory and a theory of Einstein’s. The former does not suggest the existence of other theories developed by Einstein – it equates to the theory of Einstein – while the latter does through its use of a. The same contrast is expressed by their theory versus a theory of theirs, where their before theory is an adjective-like “determiner”, rather than a noun like Einstein’s, and theirs is a pronoun.

The reason why Einstein’s theory does not include the actual word the is that this word, an “article” associated with theory, has to be replaced by the article associated with the first noun Einstein’s (a so-called “zero” article resulting from Einstein’s representing someone’s name). The rule is that only one article is allowed before a possessive noun: the article of the possessive, not of the noun after it (see 58. Optional Apostrophe Endings). The reason why their theory lacks the is that their  cannot ever accompany an article – as a “determiner” it is always a substitute for one (see 110. Nouns without “the” or “a”).

It is important to note the need in expressions like a theory of Einstein’s, where there is no starting the or similar, for a final possessive form, whether a noun with -’s or a possessive pronoun like theirs. Grammar-checking software occasionally seems unaware of this need, incorrectly suggesting that a final possessive form should be changed (see 275. How Computers Get Grammar Wrong 3, #2). Note also that a starting a(n) changes, as one might expect, to a “zero” article before an uncountable starting noun, e.g. work of Einstein’s/theirs.

Adding own (meaning “not shared with anyone else”) is grammatically possible after a possessive at either the start or end of a longer phrase (Einstein’s own theory – a theory of Einstein’s own). Once again, placing the possessive at the end creates the meaning of, and need for, a(n) or “zero” at the the start, not the. Thus, work of their own does not typically mean all of “their work” in the way their own work does.

An important requirement when own follows a possessive at the end is that the possessive must not be a pronoun (theirs, mine, hers etc.); pronouns have to become adjectives (their…, my…, her… etc.).

.

5. “As it were”

EXAMPLE

Producers are in a battle, as it were, for customers.

As this sentence shows, as it were usually forms what I have elsewhere called a “parenthetical statement” (see 183. Statements between Commas). The reason why the verb is were and not the expected singular was is that the use is “subjunctive” – a verb use that, like infinitives, has its own special forms. For other expressions involving the subjunctive, see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1, #6.

The role of as it were is to recognise the author’s ownership of an unusual word or phrase, which is commonly positioned just in front but can also come after. In the example, as it were relates to battle before it. We thus understand that the writer is responsible for this choice of word and knows it is unusual and even surprising. There is a hint almost of apology. The unusual feature of battle here is that it has been preferred to the much more common economics word competition – it is metaphorical (see 7. Metaphorical Meanings) and very strong.

There is a similarity between as it were and so-called. Although one is a parenthetical statement and the other an ordinary adjective, they both say something about a neighbouring word: showing ownership of it in the one case and expressing dislike of it in the other (see the end of 206. Ways of Conveying a Name).

.

6. “It is as well to” + Verb

EXAMPLE

It is as well to carry a mobile phone during excursions.

Placing the adverb well after BE instead of the adjective good is slightly strange but not unique to this expression (cf. is all very well in 159. Exotic Grammar Structures 2, #2). The verb at the end has to be in the base (infinitive) form.

It is as well to… is one of numerous ways of giving advice (see 187. Advising and Recommending). It normally begins its sentence, with the following to verb naming the advised action. One of its advantages is that it enables advice to be given without the use of personal pronouns like I and you.

246. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 2

.

Sometimes two grammar structures are hard to distinguish because their forms and/or meanings are similar

TRICKY CONTRASTS IN ENGLISH

As in most languages, it is quite common in English to find two items, whether of vocabulary or of grammar, whose meanings are not easy to differentiate. Although a few pairs of this kind are covered by most English coursebooks, and are as a result well-known, many are overlooked.

In this blog, posts with the above title consider rarely-explained meaning differences between grammatical structures that seem to say the same. For a list of all the posts, see 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 1. These structures are to be distinguished from similar-seeming ones that often cause grammar errors – separately considered under the heading Confusions of Similar Structures. For differences between confusingly similar vocabulary items, there are numerous posts entitled “Tricky Word Contrasts” (for a full list, plus an alphabetical list of all of the words in them, click here).

.

EXPLANATIONS OF SIMILAR STRUCTURES

1. “nothing to see” versus “nothing to be seen”

These two expressions are a special case of an infinitive verb (with to) combining with a noun-like expression just before it (the pronoun nothing) so as to make a longer “noun phrase”. See is an “active” infinitive, with nothing its grammatical object, while be seen is “passive”, with nothing its subject. Both phrases indicate inability of an unmentioned “somebody” to see something, often within a sentence starting with there:

(a) There was nothing to see / be seen.

The typical meaning suggestion made by active infinitives used like this is “at any time”, while that made by passive ones is “now” or “in the near future” (see 239. Noun Phrases Made with a “to” Verb, second section).

I think this distinction applies here, but something else is implied too. The “any time” message of nothing to see suggests invisibility resulting from non-existence, whereas the specific-time message of nothing to be seen suggests invisibility resulting from absence or concealment.

.

2. “could” versus “was able to”

These alternatives are actually mentioned quite often in grammar books, but are involved often enough in grammar errors to merit a mention here. One cause of problems is their non-combinability: you have to choose one or the other, not both together (*could be able to). Combining them is actually common in some English varieties, but not in Standard English (a term considered in this blog in the technical paper Should East African University students try to change the way they speak English?).

The main problem with could and was able to is that, although their present tense equivalents can and is able to mean the same, the change to the past creates a difference regarding whether or not the action actually took place. If we say The government was able to raise taxes, the message is that taxes were actually raised; was able to is a synonym of managed to. On the other hand, could raise taxes tells us only about a capability – that the power to raise taxes existed – without saying whether or not taxes were actually raised (see 288. Grammatical Subtleties, #4).

The most common error with these expressions is using could instead of was able to. The advice, therefore, is to stop before using could, consider whether or not the action actually happened, and change to was able to if it did.

.

3. Fundamental versus Metaphorical Uses of OWE

The fundamental use of the verb OWE is money-related:

(b) The company owed $10 million to its creditors.

In this use, OWE is easily recognised as one of those verbs that can have both a “direct” object ($10 million) and an “indirect” one (its creditors). Here, the indirect object has to in front, but it can also be placed earlier without to (…owed its creditors $10 million). It can also be omitted. These are all typical features of indirect objects (see 126. Verbs with an Indirect Object).

In the metaphorical use of OWE, by contrast, the direct object does not mean something that has to be returned to its source in the future, but is instead a benefit resulting from a lucky circumstance or someone else’s generosity, represented by the indirect object. The meaning is more like “be caused by”:

(c) The company owes its success to the insight of its founder.

This use has two important grammatical differences: the indirect object (the insight…) cannot be dropped, and it cannot be placed directly after OWE, before the direct object, so that it always follows to at the end.

The multi-word preposition owing to, which also means “caused by”, is probably derived from this second use of OWE. For details of when to use it, see 72. Causal Prepositions.

.

4. “from” versus “by” after Verb-Related Nouns

Some nouns are spelled similarly to a verb and express a related meaning. Examples are movement (like MOVE), reaction (like REACT), discovery (like DISCOVER) and change (same as CHANGE) (see 249. Action Noun Endings). A few nouns of this kind just express the same action meaning as the verb, and some only have a meaning that is not an action. Most, however, can express either of these meaning types (see 280. Alternative Meanings of Action Nouns). For example, discovery means either the action of discovering or a discovered item .

Verb-related nouns resemble verbs in another way too: they can often be accompanied by a noun (or equivalent) corresponding to the subject of the related verb’s active form. One way of including this noun is by placing it after a preposition: often by, but sometimes an alternative. Compare:

(d) Destruction of forests BY fire is not a total disaster.

(e) The arrival OF reinforcements brought relief.

To choose between by and of, you have to consider how the sentence would look if it was rephrased with the verb related to the action noun: DESTROY in (d) and ARRIVE in (e). If this verb has an object, the action noun’s “subject” will need by; otherwise it will need of (see 49. Prepositions after Action Nouns 2). With (d), the object of DESTROY would be forests.

The preposition from is another that can combine a verb-related noun with a subject-like one. However, it seems that the verb-related noun must usually not be expressing an action meaning, like this:

(f) The advice from the police is to stay at home.

Here, advice means not “the action of advising” but its outcome: a message about suitable behaviour.

Not every verb-related noun allows this use of from. Any preposition after non-action discovery, for example, is likely to be of (+ possessive noun) rather than from. Most nouns allowing from seem to be communication ones, other examples being agreement, argument, assertion, comment, confirmation, explanation, indication, instruction, opposition, pressure, recommendation, suggestion and warning (see 287. Speech and Thought Nouns). There are, however, some by-preferring exceptions, such as description, definition and prohibition.

An additional feature of from compared to by is an ability to name a less exact source. For example, where research by… would always clearly identify a researcher, research from… would only do so if the noun after it named a specific individual or small group. If this noun named an organization, from would often just indicate that the research had been done by unnamed employees within it rather than by all of it. This use of from is also evident in (f).

.

5. Purpose Infinitive versus Sequence Infinitive

One of the numerous ways to use an infinitive (verb with to) is in an independent position with its associated words at the end of a sentence:

(g) Trainee doctors study anatomy to understand sickness.

Here, the infinitive to understand and its object sickness are not necessitated by the grammar of the sentence (as they would be, for example, if they directly followed is: see 119. BE before a “to” Verb). Leaving them out would still leave a grammatically possible sentence.

In most cases, this infinitive use expresses a purpose: in (g) it says understanding sickness is why doctors study anatomy (see 60. Purpose Sentences with “for”). Sometimes, however, infinitives in this position just express an event in a sequence, and not a purpose. This is not the usage after an earlier too or enough, words that are usually an explicit signal of a following result description (see 124. Structures with a Double Meaning 1, #7). Instead, it is as illustrated in the following sentence:

(h) Columbus crossed the Atlantic, to discover a whole new world.

This means discovering a whole new world merely followed Columbus’ voyage – it was not its purpose. A notable feature is the comma before the infinitive, which would often be absent if a purpose was being expressed, as in (g). Moreover, the infinitive and its partner words are not able to start the sentence – unlike purpose infinitives.

These characteristics do not mean, however, that any purpose infinitive can be turned into a sequence one just by adding a comma. For one thing, the same infinitive is not always logical or truthful as either a purpose or a sequential event: sentence (g) would be untrue if a result-showing comma was added, while (h) would be untrue without one.

In fact, sequence infinitives too sometimes lack a comma:

(i) The police arrived (at the scene) to find a shocking sight.

A comma is absent here, I think, because the first verb (arrived) has no object noun after it, unlike crossed in (h), which is followed by the Atlantic.

A key characteristic of sentences with a sequence infinitive is ability to be paraphrased with when, like this:

(j) When Columbus crossed the Atlantic, he discovered a whole new world.

However, not every when sentence can be paraphrased by means of a sequence infinitive:

(k) When the weather deteriorated, progress slowed.

What distinguishes (j) from (k) is that both of its verbs (underlined) have the same subject (Columbus/he). Note also that when sentences meeting this condition will still not be a paraphrase of a sequence infinitive if when means “while” or “as” rather than “after” (see 225. Simultaneous Occurrence, #2).

Two kinds of writing where sequence infinitives are especially likely to occur are descriptions of natural processes (see 210  Process Descriptions) and histories (see 282.Features of History Writing). Two variants of the usage are only to… (see 251. The Grammar of “Only”, #3) and never to… (see 269. Exotic Grammar Structures 7, #2).