0
  1. Here are the instructions for you to follow.

The verb «follow» directly related to the Headword «instructions»; for- subordinator introducers one more subject in the sentence –You – it seems to be a perfect For-infinitival Relative Clause.

  1. These are climate changing efforts for forest fires to be kept that low.

The verb «kept» relates not to Headword «efforts» but rather to one more added subject introduced by for- subordinator forest fires, hence in trying to keep the form of For-infinitival RC, I put in the Passive Form.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that if a verb in the subordinate clause relates to Headword and NEW subject is introduced, then it is clear case of For-infinitival Clause.

Whereas, if it is this added Subject that the verb in Subordinate Clause relates to – it is not longer FOR-RC, but Purpose Adjunct with modality of obligation or necessity.

Am I right in my conclusion?

3
  • Your first example is an infinitival relative clause. Your second one is not well-written, but it appears to be an adjunct of purpose. You seem obsessed with infinitival relative clauses. Why is that? – BillJ Feb 1 at 8:23
  • Consider this: In your first example, the relativised element is object of "follow", But in the second, there is no possibility of one, thus ruling it out as an infinitival relative. – BillJ Feb 1 at 12:23
  • Thank you so much! Obsession )))) comes from lack of understanding. Once found about the For-RC rule, i tries to build as many sentences as possible, keeping the basic principle of construction in place. I soon found out that some of my "sentences" are unacceptable and no native speaker say so. + instruction in one exercise, which says not to repeat the object modified by RC in the newly-formed sentences, confused me a lot. I tried to look into every example, sorted them out, and for now that was the ultimate question for me. You helped a lot! Thank you!!!! – IRINA Feb 1 at 17:35
0

"for forest fires to be kept that law" is an infinitival clause functioning as a complement to the noun "effort". Efforts licensed the clause and therefore it's a complement, not an adjunct.

Forest fires is the subject of the passive infinitival clause.

3
  • The presence of "for" marks the infinitival clause as either a relative clause or a purpose adjunct, probably the latter. – BillJ Feb 1 at 12:42
  • An infinitival clause can modify a noun, which in your terma is a relative infinitival. Remember that an infinitive clause can be directly licensed by noun, which we call a complement. "His ability to convince people is appreciating". To convince people is a complement. – Modern English Feb 8 at 17:53
  • You seem to suggest the infinitive clause can only be a modifier in the presence of the subordinator "for". If you are saying so, this idea is not exactly correct. Perhaps you are saying that an infinitival clause with "for" cannot be a complement to a noun. Would you please clarify what you are saying. – Modern English Feb 8 at 17:58

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.