never to be seen again

[rainous]

After a family gathering in 1966, Vanger’s teenage great-niece Harriet abruptly vanished, never to be seen again.

Hi,

Has something been omitted before "never"?

Could someone help me parse this sentence?

Thanks

 

[5jj]

I'll have to leave the parsing to somebody else, but nothing is missing from your sentence.

 

[Raymott]

After a family gathering in 1966, Vanger’s teenage great-niece Harriet abruptly vanished, never to be seen again.

Hi,

Has something been omitted before "never"?

Could someone help me parse this sentence?

Thanks

The last phrase means, "And she was never seen again".

 

[rainous]

The last phrase means, "And she was never seen again".

I see. Is it possible to rephrase it as "...vanished to not (or "not to") be seen again." then?

 

[Raymott]

I see. Is it possible to rephrase it as "...vanished to not be seen again." then?

No, you can't. Firstly, it's wrong grammatically and secondly, it gives the impression that that is why she vanished - so that she would never be seen again. (In fact, if I recall the story, that is why she vanished, but the readers don't know this at the time, and the author doesn't want to tell them).

It's complicated because, by the time the book ends, she has been seen again, so in retrospect it's wrong. But I'd suggest that, since it's a well-known idiom, not to play with it.

 

[rainous]

Let me ask you one last question and I will stop harassing you.

I have to say I still can't come to terms with the idea of an idiom being placed right at the tail of a complete sentence with a mere comma.

Am I pushing it too far to think that "and she was" (or something similar to that) is being implied where the comma is?

 

[Raymott]

Let me ask you one last question and I will stop harassing you.
Thats fine. I don't mind honest follow-up questions until they start getting silly.

I have to say I still can't come to terms with the idea of an idiom being placed right at the tail of a complete sentence with a mere comma.
Well, that is strange. Where did you learn this restriction upon the placement of idioms?

Am I pushing it too far to think that "and she was" (or something similar to that) is being implied where the comma is?

Yes you are, if you mean "by the comma". You'd normally expect a comma there, whether she turned up again or not. However, the use of the phrase itself, taken within the context of the rest of the story, could give that impression.*
As you know, Harriet Vanger was found in Australia by Blomqvist, in his investigations.

PS * This is a literary technique called "foreshadowing".