Dear teachers and members:
As stated in my title, I find that the auxiliary GOING TO is reduced or omitted in some sentences. I know about Reduced Adverb Clause, Incomplete Adverb and Noun Clause and so on, which are grammatically correct. I would like to know if in these two sentences the same gramatical phenomenon happens.
1°) This was the first of many mistakes Kuklinski was to commit.
2°) At the time they arrived, the young woman had died; the gunshot wound was to blame.
a) As to my knowledge, the first sentence can also be as follows:
This was the first of many mistakes Kuklinski was going to commit.
b) I think that in the second sentence some grammar element is missing, but I am not quite sure which one it is.
At the time they arrived, the young woman had died; the gunshot wound was to blame.
I beg for your help in this grammar confusion.
Last edited by 5jj; 06-Mar-2014 at 15:13. Reason: Quote shortened
There is no 'reduction of BE going to in your sentences. The verb am/is/are/was/were to (there is no infinitive form) has been used. In #1, both BE going to and would would convey similar meanings, but neither works in #2, which is not the same construction.
Last edited by 5jj; 06-Mar-2014 at 22:47. Reason: Unnecessary QUOTE deleted.
Thank you for the observation Bhaisahab:
Is there a grammatical name for the thing I referred to in the above two sentences?
I would like to know if is there a grammatical name for the thing I am referring in the above two sentences?
The thing you are referring to in your first sentence appears to be simply the verb am/is/are/was/were to, sometimes referred to as BE to.
In your second sentence 'to blame' has the meaning of responsible/the cause.
Now I know what you are referring to. This is called BE + INFINITIVE or BE PLUS INFINITIVE.
My best regards.