Second half coverage to follow shortly...

[Kontol]

I'm a little bit confused by the use of the pattern "Noun + to verb" in this sentence. What does "to" exactly mean? Is it short for "will?"

Both sides are back out in Hull for the second half, with no changes to report for either. Second half coverage to follow shortly...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1723371784756428994

 

[Tarheel]

You can expect the second half coverage soon. Didn't that happen?

 

[emsr2d2]

If it helps, imagine there's an "is" before "to". Effectively, "is to" means "will". We commonly shorten it to "noun + to + verb" in this kind of construction. The tweet is a form of journalism so there are contractions that are commonly used. I'm sure you noticed that there is no article before "second half" either. The full sentence would be "The second half is to follow shortly ...".

 

[Kontol]

The full sentence would be "The second half is to follow shortly ...".

You use "would" rather than "is". What is the condition?

What about this sentence?

Both sides are back out in Hull for the second half, with no changes to report for either.

Does this sentence mean "with no changes will report for either?"

 

[Piscean]

You use "would" rather than "is". What is the condition?

... if there were a full sentence.

Both sides are back out in Hull for the second half, with no changes to report for either.

Does this sentence mean "with no changes will report for either?"

No.

... and there are no changes to report.

 

[Kontol]

Does "to" mean "will" in this sentence?

There are no changes to report = there are no changes will report.

 

[emsr2d2]

Does "to" mean "will" in this sentence?

There are no changes to report = there are no changes will report.

No, and do you really think that "There are no changes will report" is a grammatically correct sentence?

 

[Kontol]

No, and do you really think that "There are no changes will report" is a grammatically correct sentence?

It's not. It would have to be "there are no changes that will report."

 

[emsr2d2]

It's not. It would have to be "There are no changes that will report."

That's not grammatically correct either. I think the future voice in the first example of this thread has confused you. Just because "to come" means "will happen soon", that doesn't mean that "to + verb" always means the future.

I have nothing to report > I have nothing to tell you right now.
There are no changes to report > There are no changes that anyone could report right now.

Your clues are "I have" and "There are", placing both sentences in the present.

 

[jutfrank]

Both sides are back out in Hull for the second half, with no changes to report for either. Second half coverage to follow shortly...

The two tos that you've highlighted are very different. Only the second one has anything clearly to do with the future.

As emsr2d2 has said, the sentence contains an ellipsis of the verb 'be'. The full sentence is:

Second half coverage is to follow.

The blue bit is a kind of future form. The grammar structure is be + to-infinitive.

 

[Kontol]

The full sentence is:

I'm a little confused. You say "the full sentence is", while emsr2d2 says "the full sentence would be". Why are you different to say that sentence?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm a little confused. You say "the full sentence is", while emsr2d2 says "the full sentence would be". Why are you different to say that sentence?

To be completely honest, I deliberately chose is over would be as way of preventing you from asking about why I used would be instead of is. I realise now that was a mistake.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm a little confused. You say "the full sentence is", while emsr2d2 says "the full sentence would be". Why are you different to say that sentence are your answers different?

There's more than one way to say things in English. I think you know this by now.