[Grammar] He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass

[kadioguy]

He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.
-----------
Can I take it to mean:

a. He paused, as if (he was) to let the painful memories pass.
b. He paused, as if (he was going) to let the painful memories pass.

Are both of them acceptable? If not, could you tell me your opinion?

----------
(Source)

 

[GoesStation]

Sentence b is fine. The other is incorrect.

 

[kadioguy]

a. He paused, as if (he was) to let the painful memories pass.
b. He paused, as if (he was going) to let the painful memories pass.

Sentence b is fine. The other is incorrect.

Thank you.

Why is sentence (a) incorrect? Could you tell me more about that?

PS - Other members' opinions are also welcome.

---------
I just found this:

He opened his mouth as if he was to speak.
→ He opened his mouth as if to speak.

http://www.talxfun.com/blog/翻譯作品分享-translated-articles/299

Do you think it is incorrect?

 

[YAMATO2201]

He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.
-----------
Can I take it to mean:

a. He paused, as if (he was) to let the painful memories pass.
b. He paused, as if (he was going) to let the painful memories pass.

Sentence b is fine. The other is incorrect.

Is the following interpretation impossible?

c. He paused, as if (in order) to let the painful memories pass.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't think you've understood correctly. Look at it like this:

He paused, to let the painful memories pass.

The infinitive form in blue above is an infinitive of purpose. The sentence means that letting the painful memories pass was the purpose of the pausing. Instead of just to let, you could say in order to let.

By adding as if, you add the sense that his pausing merely gave the appearance that letting the memories pass was its purpose.

Another way of explaining the sense of the sentence is: it seemed that the reason he paused was to let the painful memories pass.

Does that make sense?

 

[jutfrank]

Is the following interpretation impossible?

c. He paused, as if (in order) to let the painful memories pass.

No, I think that is what it means.

 

[kadioguy]

If we say 'he was to' to something, the idea is that there was a plan, schedule, order/etc for him to do it.

(1) He paused, as if he was to let the painful memories pass.
(2) He paused, as if he was going to let the painful memories pass.
(3) He paused, as if he was about to let the painful memories pass.

Could you please tell me what is the difference in meaning among them?

I don't think you've understood correctly. Look at it like this:

He paused, to let the painful memories pass.

The infinitive form in blue above is an infinitive of purpose. The sentence means that letting the painful memories pass was the purpose of the pausing. Instead of just to let, you could say in order to let.

By adding as if, you add the sense that his pausing merely gave the appearance that letting the memories pass was its purpose.

Another way of explaining the sense of the sentence is: it seemed that the reason he paused was to let the painful memories pass.

Does that make sense?

(1) He paused, as if he was to let the painful memories pass.
(2) He paused, as if he was going to let the painful memories pass.
(3) He paused, as if he was about to let the painful memories pass.
(4) He paused, as if (in order) to let the painful memories pass.

Do you mean the original sentence means (4), rather than (1), (2), or (3)? And do you think (4) is different in meaning from (1), (2), or (3)?

 

[jutfrank]

1) He paused, as if he was to let the painful memories pass.
(2) He paused, as if he was going to let the painful memories pass.
(3) He paused, as if he was about to let the painful memories pass.
(4) He paused, as if (in order) to let the painful memories pass.

Do you mean the original sentence means (4), rather than (1), (2), or (3)?

I've already told you what it means in post #7. Did you not understand what I said about purpose?

And do you think (4) is different in meaning from (1), (2), or (3)?

Yes, it is different.

Both (2) and (3) have a sense of futurity that (4) doesn't have, and (4) has sense of purpose that (2) and (3) don't have. I can't make sense of (1).

Read post #7 again.

By the way, (4) is not correct with the bracketed part. Just leave the original sentence alone and try to understand its meaning as it is. If you rephrase the sentence, you're going to change the meaning. You have a habit of doing this, and I don't think it's often a good idea.

 

[kadioguy]

(1) He paused, as if he was to let the painful memories pass.
(2) He paused, as if he was going to let the painful memories pass.
(3) He paused, as if he was about to let the painful memories pass.
(4) He paused, as if (in order) to let the painful memories pass.

Do you mean the original sentence means (4), rather than (1), (2), or (3)?

I've already told you what it means in post #7. Did you not understand what I said about purpose?

I am embarrassed, jutfrank. Now I'll try again.

He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.

In this original sentence "to" have a meaning of purpose, which means "in order to", and that's a meaning that (2) and (3) don't have, whereas (2) and (3) have a meaning of futurity that the original sentence doesn't have. So the original sentence is different from (2) and (3).

Do I understand them correctly?

I can't make sense of (1).

be to
be going to
be about to

I know they all have a meaning of futurity, but I can't tell what the difference is in meaning in detail among them. Could you help me with that?

By the way, (4) is not correct with the bracketed part. Just leave the original sentence alone and try to understand its meaning as it is. If you rephrase the sentence, you're going to change the meaning.

(5) He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.
(6) He paused, as if in order to let the painful memories pass.

So do you mean that (6) is OK itself, but has different meaning from (5)? If you don't mind could you tell me what the difference is in meaning between them?

 

[jutfrank]

He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.

In this original sentence "to" have a meaning of purpose, which means "in order to", and that's a meaning that (2) and (3) don't have, whereas (2) and (3) have a meaning of futurity that the original sentence doesn't have. So the original sentence is different from (2) and (3).

That's right.

be to
be going to
be about to

I know they all have a meaning of futurity, but I can't tell what the difference is in meaning in detail among them. Could you help me with that?

Yes, but start a new thread if you want us to answer that.

(5) He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.
(6) He paused, as if in order to let the painful memories pass.

So do you mean that (6) is OK itself, but has different meaning from (5)?

No.

I meant to say that you shouldn't actually use in order in the sentence. I just brought it up to help explain the sense of purpose. Stop trying to change the original sentence. If you insist on a paraphrase, I'll repeat what I said in post #7:

Another way of explaining the sense of the sentence is: it seemed that the reason he paused was to let the painful memories pass.

Another paraphrase is this:

He paused, with the apparent purpose of letting painful memories pass.

Is it clear now?

 

[kadioguy]

(2) He paused, as if he was going to let the painful memories pass.
(3) He paused, as if he was about to let the painful memories pass.
(5) He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.

Can I say that the three sentences are all fine themselves, but that they have different meanings?

 

[kadioguy]

Another paraphrase is this:

He paused, with the apparent purpose of letting painful memories pass.

Is it clear now?

Yes, it is very clear. Thank you for the paraphrase, jutfrank.

 

[kadioguy]

(2) He paused, as if he was going to let the painful memories pass.
(3) He paused, as if he was about to let the painful memories pass.
(5) He paused, as if to let the painful memories pass.

Can I say that the three sentences are all fine themselves, but that they have different meanings?

(Quoted from the Practical English Usage 3rd)

213.1
If we say that something in the future is going to happen, it is usually already planned or decided, or it is starting to happen, or we can see it coming now.

5
About + infinitive (with to) means 'going to very soon'; 'just going to'.
Don't go out now - we're about to have lunch.
I was about to go to bed when the telephone rang

--------
So I think that sentence (2) and sentence (3) are both acceptable, and that they have similar meaning. Am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

Well, I don't think they fit in this sentence. I can't see what the point of introducing a sense of futurity would be.