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.

  • There's not really a why. That's just the way it is. – snailboat Nov 18 '14 at 18:37
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...

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.