[General] the meaning of `to`

[GoldfishLord]

To : used to say what can or cannot be done, or what should be done.

You'll soon be old enough to vote in elections.
He did not have the energy to resist.
------------------------------
REPLY:
Those are not clear examples. In those, to is simply part of the infinitive verb. Better:

You are to wash the car. = You are required to wash the car.

She was to discover more secrets the next day. = She was destined to discover more secrets the next day.

He said I was not to leave, no matter what. = He said I was not allowed to leave, no matter what.

They expected sunshine, but they were to be disappointed. = They expected sunshine, but they were destined to be disappointed.
​

1. What's the purpose of this REPLY
2.Is To the same meaning as to?
3.Is To the same meaning as to?

 

[charliedeut]

Yes, as far as I can see.

 

[Raymott]

To : used to say what can or cannot be done, or what should be done.

This sounds rather strange. Where did you get this usage definition from?

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Goldfish:

I was fascinated by the title of your thread. I do not know whether the following information may interest you, but I am delighted to pass it along to you.

Many years ago, I read a fascinating opinion from one grammarian. I cannot say whether it's correct or not. But I cannot get it out of my head.

"I want to leave at once."

The grammarian says this about the word "to" in that sentence:


"The meaninglessness of 'to' is easier to grasp [than some other matters that were discussed on the same page]. 'To' is only present to indicate that the subject of a particular verb is missing, for one reason or another, ... It has no independent meaning"

--Suzette Haden Elgin, A Primer of Transformational Grammar for Rank Beginners (1975), page 13.

*****

This is ONLY my thought.

Let's say that the word "to" did not exist.

Then I guess we would have to express the idea of that sentence in a way that might be something like this:

" I want that I should leave at once."

 

[GoesStation]

"The meaninglessness of 'to' is easier to grasp [than some other matters that were discussed on the same page]. 'To' is only present to indicate that the subject of a particular verb is missing, for one reason or another, ... It has no independent meaning"

--Suzette Haden Elgin, A Primer of Transformational Grammar for Rank Beginners (1975), page 13.

That's very well put. Prepositions don't mean anything by themselves; they are particles which modify the meaning of other words.

 

[jutfrank]

I would disagree with the views of GoesStation and the grammarian mentioned by TheParser.

Prepositions do have basic meanings. They don't so much "modify the meanings of other words" as express relationships between things. These 'things', however, can sometimes be verbs.

The basic meaning of to is something like a movement/inclination/orientation toward something. In the example:

I want to leave.

the word want describes a state (in this case a state of being here). The sentence suggests that I am not happy with this state of being here and that I would prefer a different state, i.e., a state of leaving. There is a desire away from something toward something else. This explains why the verb want, and similar verbs, such as intend, wish, would like, hope, e.t.c must always be followed by a to-infinitive. In sentences using these verbs, it is the first verb that happens first: the want comes first, this state allows an orientation toward action, then the leave may or may not follow as a result.

(This pattern may be contrasted with verbs that cannot use a to-infinitive. Consider I enjoy smoking., for example. There is clearly no orientation with verbs of this kind - the enjoy and the smoking occur simultaneously.)

All prepositions have meanings/uses just like any other words and no two prepositions have exactly the same meaning - it's just that it is sometimes notoriously difficult (for learners and natives alike) to define those semantic boundaries.

 

[jutfrank]

So how do you explain I want to stay here?

Good question.

Well, by expressing this sentiment, you are saying that there exists a possible future state of your not being here, as well as a possible state of your staying here at some imagined future point. The utterance, then, expresses your preferred outcome - your orientation or inclination toward one state rather than the other.

 

[jutfrank]

What do you mean exactly? They're two different thoughts.

 

[GoesStation]

I can see your point, to a certain extent. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say something like "prepositions usually don't have definitions which are useful to people trying to learn English."

 

[Raymott]

I think that's a bit too broad, GS. Many prepositions such as 'towards', 'with', 'against' have useful descriptions, if not actual technical definitions.

 

[GoldfishLord]

longman dictionary of contemporary english

 

[PaulMatthews]

The word to which is used to introduce infinitival clauses derives historically from the preposition to (note the similarity between I went to the doctor and I went to see the doctor), but long ago it lost its prepositional properties. Today there is some dispute about what category (part of speech) it belongs in. Some (like me) see it as a subordinator; others (more controversially) see it as a defective auxiliary verb.

Whichever category is preferred, its function is 'marker', a meaningless word that simply serves to mark the verb phrase that follows it as being infinitival.

 

[Rover_KE]

I found it in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

Click here for access to dozens of free online dictionaries.

They are all better than Longman.