a man to participate

[navi tasan]

Are these correct:

1-Jane is one of the women to participate in our discussion group.
2-Jane is a woman to participate in our discussion group.

I think '1' works but '2' does not.
It seems to be saying that if Jane has accepted to participate in our discussion group, then she is a woman. (She is a brave person to participate in our discussion group.)

3-John is a player to score goals.

This one seems OK to me. It means he can score goals.

Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[bhaisahab]

Are these correct:

1-Jane is one of the women to participate in our discussion group.
2-Jane is a woman to participate in our discussion group.

I think '1' works but '2' does not.
It seems to be saying that if Jane has accepted to participate in our discussion group, then she is a woman. (She is a brave person to participate in our discussion group.)

3-John is a player to score goals.

This one seems OK to me. It means he can score goals.

Gratefully,
Navi.

I don't find any of them at all natural.

 

[BobK]

I'm not one to disagree. ;-)

b

 

[MikeNewYork]

Are these correct:

1-Jane is one of the women to participate in our discussion group.
2-Jane is a woman to participate in our discussion group.

I think '1' works but '2' does not.
It seems to be saying that if Jane has accepted to participate in our discussion group, then she is a woman. (She is a brave person to participate in our discussion group.)

3-John is a player to score goals.

This one seems OK to me. It means he can score goals.

Gratefully,
Navi.

None of them work for me either, Navi.

 

[emsr2d2]

#1 works if what you mean is "Jane is one of the women [who is] to participate in our discussion group" but it's not a natural wording. It would work far better in the past tense, used after the discussion group has taken place - "Jane was one of the women to participate in our discussion group".

The other two don't make sense.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much,

How about:

a-We need a player to score goals.

I think that is correct, but can it mean two things:

1-We need for a player to score goals.=We need one of our players to score goals.
2-We need a player who can score goals=We need a new player, one who scores goals.

Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thank you all very much,

How about:

a-We need a player to score goals.

I think that is correct, but can it mean two things:

1-We need for a player to score goals.=We need one of our players to score goals.
2-We need a player who can score goals=We need a new player, one who scores goals.

Gratefully,
Navi.

Either.

 

[BobK]

:up: But that doesn't mean 'It's ambiguous and so it's bad' Navi. The context will make it clear:

In 'We need a player to score goals, and I've got my mind on just the man' it's clear that the meaning is 2.

In 'We need a player to score goals, but the Board won't let me spend any more, so get out there and score' it's clear that the meaning is 1.

b