You ever tried to hug your kitty .......

[JACEK1]

Hello everybody!

I would like to ask you what the following sentence might mean:

#9: Leaning in
You ever tried to hug your kitty just for it to run away from your loving arms?

Does it mean "(Have) You ever tried to hug your kitty when it (the kitty, of course) suddenly ran away from your loving arms?

Even though there is "for it to run ..." structure, which might suggest a purpose sentence, the whole sentence from beginning to end would not make sense.

The sentence occurs 5.29 minutes into the film entitled "13 Ways to Show Cats Love In Their Language" and is on Youtube.

The source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYLguFC0dnc

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes. The word "Have" is omitted but implied at the start. We do this a lot in spoken English. We don't always omit just one word.


Been to Spain?

Got any money?

Fancy a pint?

 

[Tarheel]

Cats are like that.

 

[Tdol]

I don't think just/only for for is the same as when. It describes an unexpected outcome- you want the kitten to respond positively to the cuddle, not regard it as some kind of threat.

 

[Tarheel]

Tdol, it's not that they regard you as a threat. They're just not not in the mood for a cuddle. In fact, they're just as likely to want to use your lap for a place to nap just when you're ready to get up.

 

[jutfrank]

for it to run away is synonymous with causing it to run away.

The sense here is that your attempt to cuddle the kitty is what causes it to flee.

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher. Just passing by with a question.
------
Would "You ever tried to hug your cat only to see it run away from your loving arms?" work too?

 

[jutfrank]

Not a teacher. Just passing by with a question.
------
Would "You ever tried to hug your cat only to see it run away from your loving arms?" work too?

Yes.

You can also say: ... only for it to run away ...

In fact, the original construction works better with only.

 

[JACEK1]

Could you provide a few more sentenses using the structure "just/only for noun/pronoun to infinitive"?

 

[jutfrank]

Could you provide a few more sentenses using the structure "just/only for noun/pronoun to infinitive"?

I suggest you don't use just in this construction. It's not incorrect to do so, but only is better.

While we're thinking of some nice examples, why don't you have a go? Remember to include the idea that the result is seen as disappointing, and that it means that the attempt at whatever it was you were trying to do was ultimately unsuccessful.

 

[Glizdka]

"Back when Poland used to be a centrally-planned economy, people frequently queued up to a store for hours only for someone to walk out of it and tell the rest outside they could go home because there was nothing left to buy."

Is that sentence correct?

 

[jutfrank]

The use of the phrase in question is very nice.

Change the preposition to.

 

[Glizdka]

Change the preposition to.

"Back when Poland used to be a centrally-planned economy, people frequently queued up outside a store for hours only for someone to walk out of it and tell the rest outside they could go home because there was nothing left to buy."

Like this?

 

[kadioguy]

I would use "in front of".

 

[Glizdka]

I would use "in front of".

I thought "outside a store" would fit "to walk out of it" better.

 

[kadioguy]

I thought "outside a store" would fit "to walk out of it" better.

Imagine that you have queued up in front of the door of a store for hours only for someone to walk out and tell you the bad news.

 

[Tdol]

Tdol, it's not that they regard you as a threat.

I apologise for daring to post something that might seem like I know what goes on in a cat's head.

 

[Glizdka]

I apologise for daring to post something that might seem like I know what goes on in a cat's head.

Nobody, even the cat, knows what goes on in a cat's head.

 

[Tarheel]

"Back when Poland was a centrally-planned economy, people frequently queued up to a store for hours only for someone to walk out of it and tell the people outside they could go home because there was nothing left to buy."

I think you are recounting what really happened, but I can't be sure. (It's hard to understand.)

 

[GoesStation]

I think you are recounting what really happened, but I can't be sure. (It's hard to understand.)

It's hard for someone who never experienced it to imagine how hard everyday life was in the Soviet-bloc countries. Consumer goods were unimaginably shoddy, but that didn't matter too much because they were often nearly impossible to get. The terrific Robin Williams film Moscow on the Hudson shows a glimpse of it, but when I asked a cousin who immigrated from Moscow a couple of years before the film was set whether it was a realistic portrayal she said "No. Life was much worse."

Just one example: sanitary napkins were unavailable in communist Czechoslovakia. Women had to use rags. Apparently nobody in the responsible ministry was female or had any female relatives.