The fundraising committee, chaired by Charles Stoddard and including Dr. G.P. Twitchell, Judge F.N. Thompson, Frank P. Forbes, and Walter S. Carson, successfully raised enough money to construct the new facilities (from a book "Baystate Franklin Medical Center")

Lake raised enough money to build a more conventional submarine (from a book "The Submarine Book")

In the two sentences above, which role do 'to infinitive clauses'("to construct the new facilities" in the first and "to build a more conventional submarine" in the second) do grammatically?

  1. postmodifiers of the noun "money"(in this case, the 'to infinitive clause' is included in the noun phrase headed by 'money')
  2. adverbial clauses which express 'Purpose'(in this case, the adverbial clause modifies the verb "raised", so 'to infinitive clause' is not included in the noun phrase headed by 'money')

Which is right? I'm so confused.

*Updated - additional question

We raised money to build a water well in Kenya

In this sentence, there is no "enough". In this case, what's the role of 'to infinitive clause'? Is the role in this case different from the role of 'to infinitive clause' related to the sentences which include 'enough'?


I don't think it's either. I think they're complements of enough. "How much money?" "Enough (money) to build a submarine".

Consider Not enough money to build a submarine. This is clearly a noun phrase, and it normally refers to a sum of money. It is irrelevant whether or not the money is purposed for building a submarine: the infinitive clause - or, rather, enough plus the infinitive clause - specifies the amount of money.

  • Thank you. Your opinion is very reasonable and convincing. By the way, if we delete "enough", what is the role of 'to infinitive clause'? For example, "We raised money to build a water well in Kenya."
    – Mcreaper
    Apr 4 '21 at 21:58
  • In that case, the infinitive clause is clearly a purpose clause, but I think it is open whether it postmodifies money, or applies to the predicate as a whole: either interpretation is possible.
    – Colin Fine
    Apr 4 '21 at 22:01
  • What do you mean by "the predicate as a whole"? Would you specifically write it? "raised" or "raised money"?
    – Mcreaper
    Apr 4 '21 at 22:15
  • Is there a meaning difference depending on whether 'to infinitive clause' postmodifies "money", or applies to the predicate as a whole?
    – Mcreaper
    Apr 4 '21 at 22:19
  • @Mcreaper. I mean "raised money". "Raised to build a well" is incoherent nonsense. As for the difference: while it's hard to see a practical difference in this case, there is surely a world of difference between raising [money to build a well] and [raising money][to build a well].
    – Colin Fine
    Apr 5 '21 at 10:29

Definitely 2. "Enough money for the purpose of building a submarine", etc.

You could say "Fiona raised enough money to buy an elephant, but actually used it to buy a car". That wouldn't make much sense if she were somehow specifically raising money-to-buy-an-elephant.

A couple of examples that may be clearer, though they aren't specifically "raised enough money to ...":

You might say, referring to someone's problematic drinking, "he's drunk enough vodka to kill a horse"; that doesn't mean that killing a horse was the purpose or that it was special horse-killing vodka, it means that he drank an awful lot of it. (This would almost certainly be an exaggeration, of course: if someone had actually drunk enough vodka to kill a horse, they would be dead.)

Or "Mark Zuckerberg has enough money to give everyone in the world ten dollars", which doesn't at all suggest that that's what he's going to do with it, or that it's a special kind of money intended for that purpose.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .