he was asked to leave to...

[navi tasan]

1) He was asked by me to leave for me to take my clothes off.
2) He was asked by me to leave to take my clothes off.
3) He was asked to leave to take my clothes off.

I know that the passive is a bit cumbersome here, but I am interested in the way syntax works in such cases.
It seems to me that #1 is correct and has the intended meaning (I am going to take my clothes off). I think #2 and #3 mean that he is supposed to take my clothes off. They don't have the intended meaning and are basically meaningless.

Is that correct or could #2 and #3 be used instead of #1?

 

[Annabel Lee]

1) He was asked by me to leave for me to take my clothes off.

Wouldn't you rather say this?

I asked him to leave so I could undress.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Annabel Lee,

I would and I did mention that I knew that the passive was cumbersome in those sentences. But I was just wondering how syntax would work in those sentences.

 

[Skrej]

No, all three are different. Ignoring the awkward syntax:

1) I asked him to leave so I could take my own clothes off.

2) I asked him to leave so that he could go someplace else to remove my clothes. Grammatically it's ambiguous who's wearing my clothes. However, since he logically can't undress me if we're not in the same room, then he must be wearing my clothes. I've now asked him to leave and go remove them.

3) This is the same as #2, except that it's now ambiguous as well who asked him to leave and take off my clothes.

 

[emsr2d2]

@navi tasan I can't see any benefit to creating sentences for contexts in which we simply would not use the passive.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Skrej and Emsr2d2.

Emsr2d2, you definitely do have a point, but I think that those sentences are theoretically possible. Maybe in certain contexts such sentences might be used. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. I was just experimenting here. Skrej's reply clarified everything for me. I don't intend to use such sentences myself.