turn

[Taka]

Originally Posted by tdol

It does identify the purpose of the turn, but it isn't as high as 'your'. In phrases like 'their food to eat', the infinitive seems more of an intensifier than anything else- it just stresses what we already know. I don't think it's really telling me that this is the purpose of the food, just emphasising that it is truly theirs.

Whether a low identifier or an intensifier, they all modify the noun in front. Do adjectival words/phrases always have to be a high identifier as you think?

[Tdol]

In 'their food to eat', unless it distiguishing it from 'to cook', then it's more redunancy than modification, isn't it?

[Taka]

Well, then what about the infinitive in "your work to do"?

[Taka]

tdol?

[Tdol]

What else would you do with work? It seems to be there for emphasis trather than to tell me what to do.

[Taka]

Do you think what adjectives do is only to identify something? What about "very" in, say, "the very act of stealing"? The word "very" does not really define anything; IMO it's some sort of emphasis, but it's grammatically an adjective nonetheless.

[Taka]

Sir.?

[Tdol]

Are you saying that 'the very act' is mofidied in the same way as 'food to eat'? If not, then what is your argument? In 'food to eat', 'to eat' is an infinitive not an adjective, so the grammatical comparison breaks down before it even starts. Whether the infinitve has a function similar to that of an adjective is the question.

In terms of meaning, the comparison also breaks down. 'Very' narrows the range down. If I say 'the very person', I am narrowing down the scope. There might be a couple of people who could do it, but you are 'the very one' I wanted to see. The 'very moment' lays great emphasis on the exactness of the time. 'Food to eat' just distinguishes it from food to throw down the toilet, IMO. It's verbiage rather than anything else. In what context would it be necessary? If the food is cooked, then it's unnecessary. If it needs preparing, then it wouldn't be used. Can you think of a context where it might be needed?

[Taka]

Originally Posted by tdol

Are you saying that 'the very act' is mofidied in the same way as 'food to eat'? If not, then what is your argument?

What I want to say is, it seems like for you adjectivals--adjectives or adjective use of infinitives--always have to accurately identify what the object is. I've just been wondering if such accurate identification is always necessarily for what is called "adjectivals". That's why I've given the example of "very", which I thought was very similar to "to eat" in "food to eat" or "to do" in "work to do" in that none of them doesn't really define anything.

Originally Posted by tdol

Whether the infinitve has a function similar to that of an adjective is the question.

Wait a minute I think I've found what the problem is. Here in Japan, we learn that adjectives can be divided into three kinds. No less, no more. Just three kinds: noun-equivalents, adjectivals, and adverbials.

(as a noun) To dream is an experience common to all people.
(as an adjective) I have an assignment to do today.
(as an adverb) You come to school to study.

Trained that way, when we Japanese see infinitives, we think they have to be one of those three kinds. As for "to eat" in "food to eat" or "to drive" in "your turn to drive", clearly the infinitives are not noun-equivalents nor adverbials. So I, as a typical Japanese, thought they had to be adjectivals just because there was only one choice left; I just used the process of elimination.

Are you saying that such a way of grouping is a bit rough, and there should be more than that?

[Tdol]

As I understand it, adjectives can become verbs in Japanese if there is no main verb- I think you might be transferring here. I think English grammar might be less rigidly coded in some areas, and this may well be one of those. The natural rewaction of an English speaker would not be to classify an infinitve as an adjective in these cases, but to think of it as an infinitve of purpose.