You are already familiar with the structure of "noun+to+verb".
cake to make, house to stay in, a city to go to, man to kill, hamburger to eat
We know that there are certain abstract nouns which are followed by to as in
attempt to go, decision to make a cake, order to retreat, tendency to use the weapons
And we can see easily that to used in the middle between certain abstract nouns and verbs does not have got the role it has in the former examples.
In "decision to make a cake" I understand that to is explanatory of the decision and explains what the decision is.
I don't understand it in this way, "decision itself will make a cake", also logic easily says sth abstract can not make a cake.
Once I was confused with these certain abstract nouns and finally came to realize that they are special abstract nouns followed by "to" and I had to accept them as they are.
Let's come to my question.
In first example "cake to make", I do understand that cake is in passive role, and object. What if I just write "decision to make". Does decision still have got the explanatory role? If so, how come? It suggests nothing... Or at this point, must we apply the logic present in the first examples to this case?
I mean, is decision in the position of cake grammatically?
In "cake to make", cake is object and the one effected by the action. In "decision to make" is it like "there is no decision made but a decision must be made"?
If you are willing to answer my question,please firstly write, as a native speaker, how does it sound to you regardless of your linguistic background, then you are more than welcome to mention about grammatical aspects.