I think use of infinitive forms as reducted relative clauses is advanced level of English (many grammar books and sites that I've read don't contain this topic) but I've just wanted to make permanent my knowledge and wanted you to help people wondering this grammar topic by checking my knowledge.
First link about using infinitives as reducted relative clauses (Section in the link: "Nonfinite relative clauses"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#Nonfinite_relative_clauses
Grammar topic no 1 ("to + v1" as "that + should + be + v3" OR "that + will + be + v3"):
As far as I understand, an infinitive form that comes after implied, unvoiced relative pronoun (after a noun) and doesn't have an object after it means "that should be v3" OR "that will be v3". (see article 2 in "Nonfinite relative clauses" section)
-Am I right above sentence?
I think the equalities that I wrote below are correct but I want you to check for them.
He is the man to rely on = He is the man that should be relied on OR He is the man that will be relied on (Are these equalities correct?)
-Can this structure be diversified like below?
My examples: 1-"I know a man to rely on because of his words." 2-"I think he is a man to rely on because he has told the truth most times." 3-"She is a woman to admire for her eyes."
Grammar topic no 2 ("to + v1" as "that + will + v1 + obj"):
It says "infinitive clauses modifying the subject of the infinitive verb" (see article 3 in "Nonfinite relative clauses" section) (a bit of confusing but I think it means "infinitives modifying the noun before itself and taking object after itself")
Am I right above sentence?
Original example: "She is the person to save the company." = She is the person that will save the company. (Am I right?)
If object "the company" is removed ("She is the person to save"), the sentence's meaning is changing as "She is the person that will be saved". (Am I right?)
I think this is a wrong example for both of these grammar topics: "I thought they have missed the plane to fly to Madagascar" (this sentence is a wrong example for these two grammar topics because these structures need a transitive infinitive form (taking object) and the verb fly is an intransitive verb) (Am I right?)
Meaning of above example sentence: "I thought they have missed the plane in order to fly to Madagascar" (Am I right?)
Second link about using infinitives as reducted relative clauses (Section in the link: "After there is, there are"): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/infinitive-active-or-passive
In this site, they've also told the structure that I've written in Grammar topic no 1 in section "After there is, there are".
My questions about this link:
Question 1- Have they restricted this structure as a thing that is only used with "There is, there are" ? (we've seen exm. sentences without "there is / there are" in the wikipedia link) Example from the cambridge link: "Come on! There’s work to do. or Come on! There’s work to be done."
Question 2- In the link, they've written there is very small difference between "to do" and "to be done" (interchangeable structures). Then, can I use "to + be + v3" instead of "to + v1"?
For example: "You have to chop the woods to be chopped" OR "He is the man to be relied on" (Are these examples correct?)
Thanks already now.