0

He met Luis Suarez's cross at the far post, only for Chelsea keeper Petr Cech to show brilliant reflexes to deflect his header on to the bar. Carroll turned away to lead Liverpool's insistent protests that the ball had crossed the line but referee Phil Dowd and assistant referee Andrew Garratt waved play on, with even a succession of replays proving inconclusive.

I have no ideas how to interpret this sentence.

I think that the bold part of it could be interpreted in both ways: purpose and result.

1

He met Luis Suarez's cross at the far post, [only for Chelsea keeper Petr Cech to show brilliant reflexes to deflect his header on to the bar].

It's the whole of the bracketed element that is an adjunct, not just the infinitival clause. I'm not sure what semantic category it belongs in, though it could be a peripheral case of result.

"For Chelsea keeper Petr Cech to show brilliant reflexes to deflect his header on to the bar" is an infinitival clause, with "Chelsea keeper Petr Cech" as subject and the VP "to show brilliant reflexes to deflect his header on to the bar" as predicate.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.