They need big, strong dogs with furry coats to work in the north

[hhtt21]

I started to confuse the meaning of some constructions. Can someone help me please? This is a "to" construction, probably "to infinity". I confuse if to-infinity modify preceding noun, or it is about "intention" of the subject.

Following is the original sentence that I confuse. Is "to work" about subject or "object" dogs?

"They need big, strong dogs with furry coats to work in the north."

For example: In 1 it is not clear to me who will protect building: "We" or "dogs". 2 has the same construction and it is clear that dogs will bite the thief.

1. We need dogs to protect the building.
2. We need dogs to bite the thief.

Thanks .

 

[jutfrank]

I'll try to generalise an answer by using just one of your example sentences.

1) We need dogs to protect the building.

This is ambiguous. It could be interpreted in two ways: that dogs protect the building or that 'we' protect the building. Without any disambiguating context, the former interpretation is much more likely. This interpretation comes primarily from our knowledge that it makes a lot of sense that protecting buildings is something dogs often do.

Compare it with this sentence:

2) To protect the building, we need dogs.

This sentence has the same content, but the logic is a bit different. Here, the latter interpretation is more likely, due to the switched clauses.

Now let's add a couple of words to the original example:

3) We need dogs in order to protect the building.

Does the addition of 'in order to' clarify anything? Hopefully, you can see that it does.

 

[hhtt21]

This is ambiguous. It could be interpreted in two ways: that dogs protect the building or that 'we' protect the building.

Is the grammar different in two interpretations? I think yes, and I would like to explore them. Is there something like adjectives here, and are dogs modified by them? Both express purpose. Is the first interpretation the answer of "What is for dogs"? So is it closely related to "for"?

 

[jutfrank]

Is there something like adjectives here, and are dogs modified by them?

Sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you think is like an adjective?

Is the first interpretation the answer of "What is for dogs"? So is it closely related to "for"?

Please ask again in a different way so that I can better understand your question.

 

[hhtt21]

Sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you think is like an adjective?

To construction.

We need dogs to protect the building.

Does not "to" construction in the above modify "dogs" by giving their purpose or task? (According to the first interpretation of the ambigous situation)

 

[hhtt21]

Please ask again in a different way so that I can better understand your question.

Does the first interpretation answer the questions of "what is for dogs\ For what do the dogs stand there?" and "What are the purposes\tasks of dogs"

Does the first interpretation give the answer of "Why are dogs kept there"?

 

[hhtt21]

The second interpretation is the same as "in order to", but the first isn't. So what are the names of constructions?

Isn't it clear enough that the two construction are quite different? Or Am I wrong? This is a more clear example:

a. I am not good at English, so I must find someone to help.

b. I am a teacher, so I must find someone to help.

I think b. introduces subjects's purpose, and a. introduces object's task. Are the direction of the actions different? In a help is from object to subject, whereas in b, help is from subject to object?

 

[teechar]

I started to confuse the meaning of some constructions. Can someone help me please? This is a "to" construction, probably "to infinity". I confuse if In particular, I'm not sure whether to-infinity a to-infinitive modifies a preceding noun, or if it is about the "intention" of the subject.

Hello @hhtt21. I think you haven't been practising English for a while. I strongly advise you to read and listen to authentic English material in your spare time to improve and maintain your phrasing skills.

In answer to your question, remember that context usually clarifies ambiguities. Here's another such potentially unclear example:

Jane: We need tenants to pay the rent.

This could mean:
- Tenants need to pay the rent.
- Jane needs (to get tenants) in order to pay her rent.

However, I repeat that sentences are not said out of context, so there is normally not much potential for ambiguity.