a. We have soldiers in the city to keep it from falling to the enemy.
What is the agent of 'to keep'? Is it 'we' or is it 'soldiers'?
I think it could be either. This seems to be a purely grammatical issue. At the end of the day, it doesn't make a difference.
But if the 'soldiers' are going to keep the city from falling to the enemy, then how is the sentence to be parsed?
Is 'to keep it from falling to the enemy' an adjectival phrase postmodifying soldiers?
b. We have soldiers to keep the city from falling to the enemy in the city.
Is (b) grammatically correct?
Many thanks.
to keep the city from falling
Moderator: Alan
- Alan
- Teacher/Moderator
- Posts: 15208
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:56 pm
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: Japan
Re: to keep the city from falling
What is the agent of 'to keep'? Is it 'we' or is it 'soldiers'?
I think it could be either.
We generally reckon the grammatical subject to be the agent in such cases unless sense dictates otherwise, although, in this particular case, the point is moot.
But if the 'soldiers' are going to keep the city from falling to the enemy, then how is the sentence to be parsed?
Is 'to keep it from falling to the enemy' an adjectival phrase postmodifying soldiers?
Yes, if we were to reckon soldiers as agent, it would indeed be.
b. We have soldiers to keep the city from falling to the enemy in the city.
Is (b) grammatically correct?
Semantically a little strange, perhaps, but not specifically ungrammatical...
I think it could be either.
We generally reckon the grammatical subject to be the agent in such cases unless sense dictates otherwise, although, in this particular case, the point is moot.
But if the 'soldiers' are going to keep the city from falling to the enemy, then how is the sentence to be parsed?
Is 'to keep it from falling to the enemy' an adjectival phrase postmodifying soldiers?
Yes, if we were to reckon soldiers as agent, it would indeed be.
b. We have soldiers to keep the city from falling to the enemy in the city.
Is (b) grammatically correct?
Semantically a little strange, perhaps, but not specifically ungrammatical...