three keys to open the main gate

[navi tasan]

1) He made three keys to open the main gate.

2) He had enough keys to open the main gate, so he could give one to each of his servants and keep one for himself.

3) He made enough keys to open the main gate, so he could give one to each of his servants and keep one for himself.

4) He had enough keys made to open the main gate, so he could give one to each of his servants and keep one for himself.

Which are correct if there is only one key needed to open the main gate? The main gate has one lock.

 

[Tarheel]

1. He had three keys for opening the main gate.

2. He had several keys for opening the main gate-- enough so that he could give one to each of his servants and keep one for himself.

3. He made enough keys to open the main gate that he could give one to each of his servants and keep one for himself.

4. He had enough keys to open the main gate that he could give one to each of his servants and keep one for himself.

 

[PeterCW]

Colloquially in the UK we would say "... keys for the ..." rather than "... keys to open the ...". It would be understood that these were identical keys.

 

[emsr2d2]

He had a key to the main gate, and gave a copy to each of his servants.

 

[Skrej]

He made/had enough main gate keys for himself and all his servants.

If you wanted to specify how many keys:

He made/had enough main gate keys for himself and three servants.

 

[jutfrank]

a) He made three keys for the main gate

This is ambiguous in that we don't know if three keys means three copies of the same key or if it means there is one key each for three different locks.

b) He made three keys to open the main gate

The infinitival to open the main gate sounds to me like the purpose of the preceding clause, expressing nothing more than that opening the main gate was the point of making the three keys. Why he made three keys for just one gate can only be guessed at.

c) He made three keys to lock the main gate

In this superficially similar sentence, I think the infinitival is most likely interpreted not as the purpose of making the locks but rather as what the locks were intended for, so although it looks the same as b. on the surface, it's structurally different.