ascribed "to"

[pink dragon]

Please see the following sentence:

We have sequenced the 36 chromosomes of the 32.8-megabase haploid genome of Leishmania major (Friedlin strain) and predict 911 RNA genes, 39 pseudogenes, and 8272 protein-coding genes, of which 36% can be ascribed a putative function.

I thought “to” is necessary after “ascribed”.
Will the meaning be different when there is and there is not “to” after “ascribed” in this sentence?

[Casiopea]

It's fine the way it is. Structure is the key.

ascribe is a double object verb: it takes a direct object and an indirect object, and you can switch them around, like this,

[1] They ascribe to the conjunction the meaning of . . . .
[2] They ascribe the meaning of . . . to the conjunction.

Note, [1] and [2] are in active voice. In passive voice, the direct object takes over the structural subject position,

[1] The meaning of . . . is ascribed to the conjunction.
[2] To the conjunction, the meaning of . . . is ascribed.

In [2], the indirect object is topicalized, or moved to the front for emphasis.

Now, in our examples below, 'be ascribed' looks a lot like passive voice:

[3] . . . genes, of which 36% can be ascribed (by us to have) a putative function.


Here's the same sentence, without the 'of which' phrase,


[4] 36% of the genes can be ascribed (by us to have) a putative function.

Active voice yields [5] and [6],

[5] We ascribe a putative function to 36% of the genes.
[6] We ascribe to 36% of the genes a putative function.

Look! In [6], there's the missing 'to' you've been looking for.

All the best,

[pink dragon]

Casiopea,
Thank you so much!!!!!
Your explanation is very kind and easy to understand.
It's unbelievable that I can have such a nice teacher for free!
I really appreciate it.

[Casiopea]

You're most welcome, pink dragon.