unmarked

[Anonymous]

He was unmarked to head the ball into the goal.

Is this sentence grammatically correct?
Is he the subject of the verb unmark?
Doesn't the sentence imply that he unmarked himself with the precise intention of heading the ball into the goal.

[Casiopea]

He was unmarked to head the ball into the goal.

Is this sentence grammatically correct?
Is he the subject of the verb unmark?
Doesn't the sentence imply that he unmarked himself with the precise intention of heading the ball into the goal.

I've no idea what 'unmarked' means, but as for the structure of your sentence, it's passive:

1. He was unmarked by something or someone (passive)
2. Someone or something unmarked him (active)

In the passive sentence, the word 'He' has two functions: it's the structural subject and the semantic object. That is, 'He' is acted upon by someone or something. 'He' is not the actor. 'He' does not commit the action.

In the active sentence, the word 'him' is the object of the verb 'unmarked'. 'him' is acted upon by someone or something. It's the someone or something that acts out the action.

:D

[shane]

'Unmarked' is a football (soccer in AE) term. It means that no one is watching, or 'marking' you.

If you are unmarked to head the ball into the goal, it means that you are standing on your own on the football pitch, and you have a clear chance to head the ball.

:)

[Casiopea]

'Unmarked' is a football (soccer in AE) term. It means that no one is watching, or 'marking' you.

If you are unmarked to head the ball into the goal, it means that you are standing on your own on the football pitch, and you have a clear chance to head the ball.

:)

Kewl! Thanks Shane :D

[shane]

Kewl! Thanks Shane :D

Always a pleasure. :)

[navi tasan]

The trouble with the sentence is that one gets the impression that the guys in the other team wanted him to head the ball into the goal. They "unmarked" him so that he could head the ball into their own goal?
The infinitive in the sentence seems to function a bit like the one in:
He woke up to find his room in a mess.
Here, the infinitive does not imply intention.

[Tdol]

You could say he was 'left unmarked'.

[Casiopea]

The trouble with the sentence is that one gets the impression that the guys in the other team wanted him to head the ball into the goal. They "unmarked" him so that he could head the ball into their own goal?
The infinitive in the sentence seems to function a bit like the one in:
He woke up to find his room in a mess.
Here, the infinitive does not imply intention.

How about this?

He was (left) unmarked (by the opposing team) to head the ball into the goal.

The opposing team left him open to score.

:D

[navi tasan]

Well, I think I have understood what is going on (FINALLY).
If I say:
"I left the door open for the cat to come in."
doesn't that mean that I wanted the cat to come in?
If I say:
"I was left there to watch the house."
doesn't that mean that the people who left me there wanted me to watch the house?

Now apparently if I say:
"They left me unmarked (open) to score a goal (against them)."
that does not mean that they wanted me to score a goal.
I guess the sentence is like:
A-That left me free to act.
in which "that" (persumably an event or a circumstance) doesn't have the intention of leaving me free to act.
In other words the to clause doesn't necessarily imply an intention, something I seem to have assumed unconsciously since it does most of the time.
Have I understood all this correctly?
In other words, neither of the sentences:
1-He was unmarked to score.
2-He was left open (unmarked) to score.
implies that they wanted him to score.


Have I understood all this correctly

[RonBee]

If I say:
"I left the door open for the cat to come in."
doesn't that mean that I wanted the cat to come in?

Yes, it does.

If I say:
"I was left there to watch the house."
doesn't that mean that the people who left me there wanted me to watch the house?

Yes, it does.

Now apparently if I say:
"They left me unmarked (open) to score a goal (against them)."
that does not mean that they wanted me to score a goal.

Yes, it does mean that. But people don't always say what they mean to say. I think that statement was a mistake. Better would have been: "They left me unmarked and I was thus able to score a goal against them." Or: "They left me unmarked, which meant I was able to score a goal against him."

People don't always say what they mean to say. I don't think they intentionally allowed that person to score a goal against them. Thus, I believe that statement was made in error.

Does that help?

:)