1

Source: p 48 , The Law of Contract, 5 ed (2012), by O’Sullivan and Hilliard

For example, if my (happily married) wife and I sit down to carefully decide who should pick up the kids from school on which day, and I say that I will do it on Mondays and Tuesdays if she does it on the other weekdays, it does not appear to my wife that I intend our arrangement to impose legal obligations upon either of us. It is not a situation in which we believe that there will be further negotiations following which we enter into a legally binding arrangement; we never intend there to be a contract at all.

Since 'intend' can be transitive, why there? Why not simply write 'we never intend a contract at all'? My Googling produced p 214, Oxford Modern English Grammar, by Bas Aarts which I don't understand:

The grammaticality of the following example [38] also shows that the postverbal NP position cannot be filled by an argument of INTEND.

38 I certainly intend there to be an increase in ranger and warden ser- vices to ensure that responsibities are exercised by those who have the new right.

As noted before, there (along with dummy it) is meaningless, and cannot therefore be a semantic argument of the verb that precedes it.

1
  • There's not really a why. That's just the way it is.
    – user230
    Nov 18, 2014 at 18:37

1 Answer 1

1

Think of it as for there, dropping the preposition:

we never intend (for) there to be a contract at all.

and

I certainly intend (for) there to be an increase in ranger and warden services...

You must log in to answer this question.