'Out to get me.'

Question

"He was out to get me."

'Out' is not a verb, so 'He was out' looks like subject/linking verb/PA, except that quite plainly 'out to get me' carries the full meaning, because 'He was out' on its own means one of several completely different things. How do you analyse a construction (and there are many) where a 'modifier' in fact changes the meaning completely? 'To get me' isn't just adverbial to 'out', it changes the meaning completely. And, yes, a lot of verbs work this way, where their meaning is only clear from their complement. But 'out' is most simply analysed here as a PA. Can an adjective require a complement? Or rather, can a specific meaning of an adjective require a complement? And are there instances where an adjective can only have a particular meaning when used as a PA?

Who said that "out" was a verb in the first place? It's clearly an adjective in this case. — Max Williams, Jul 04 '16 at 13:32
'is' is the verb. but the rest, that's interestingly idiomatic. I'm having trouble thinking of any different but similar construction. — Mitch, Jul 04 '16 at 13:42
'Out' can be a verb--"I'm going to out him"--usually in the sense of 'reveal he is gay'. But 'was out' can't work like that because 'out' is not the Past Participle (though some verbs like 'cut' have a PastP that is the same as the present). PastP of 'out' is 'outed'. — Dunsanist, Jul 04 '16 at 13:52
'He was out to get even' is another thing again, with a different sense of 'get'. 'He was out to win'. So 'out' in this sense is an adjective that seems to require an infinitive as complement. — Dunsanist, Jul 04 '16 at 13:55
Out as an adverb with one of these possible meanings: 10. seeking openly and energetically to do or have; 14. in or into activity, existence, or outward manifestation; 22. with completeness or effectiveness; 24. so as to obliterate or make undecipherable: to get someone: 15. Informal: to kill; 16. Informal: to take vengeance on — , Jul 04 '16 at 14:36
@Dunsanist of course. www.englishgrammar.org/adverb-complements/ — , Jul 04 '16 at 14:46
That's talking about adverbs that ARE complements, not adverbs that REQUIRE complements. — Dunsanist, Jul 04 '16 at 14:49
Seems to me that "to be out" (to do something) is similar to phrasal verbs like "to set out" (something). "She set out the table" is fine. "She set out" has an entirely different meaning. And "She set the table" also has a different meaning. The "out" is idiomatically hard-coded into the verb. The phrasal verb "to set out" takes an object as a complement, just like "to be out" probably takes an infinitive. It's the whole phrasal verb that has the complement, not a subpart of it (for example "out"). — DyingIsFun, Jul 04 '16 at 14:51
Okay…that makes sense. I'd note, though, that 'out' as part of 'to be out (to get so.)' is a long way from its normal uses as a preposition. Unless, perhaps, it refers to someone leaving their hut with a big stick…'He has gone out to get someone.' — Dunsanist, Jul 04 '16 at 15:16

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Jul 04 '16 at 13:50

1

He was ready to fight.

She was prepared to listen.

They were eager to learn.

They were out to lunch. [this one is a joke, but it is the structure nonetheless]

We are happy to go.

I am pleased to help. They were out to squeeze us.

The structure here is not a modifier. It is: Subject + adjective + infinitive where the adjective points to a state of mind and the infinitive links the verb with the subject.

answered Jul 04 '16 at 13:50

Lambie

14,826

Three things. First, in 'out to lunch' 'to lunch' is not an infinitive, so it is an entirely different structure. Second, most of those adjectives don't 'need' the infinitive--'He was ready' is fine, 'He was out' is a completely different meaning than 'He was out to get me'. Thirdly…'the infinitive links the verb with the subject'--I don't understand what you mean here. – Dunsanist Jul 04 '16 at 14:40
Surely the infinitives can be analysed as adverbial to the PA. My issue is not that 'to get' isn't adverbial to 'out', it is that it changes the meaning of 'out' completely--yes, to a state of mind. But surely in 'ready to fight', 'to fight' modifies 'ready', without altering the meaning of 'ready'. – Dunsanist Jul 04 '16 at 14:46
The out to lunch was a joke: think about it though, to lunch is a verb as well. That said, I see no adverbs here at all. For me the TO is a linking element. It links the state or condition the subject of the clause is in (a state or condition of readiness, happiness, preparedness and even being out, for example) in reference to what comes after the to. – Lambie Jul 04 '16 at 15:18
'They were out to lunch him…whoops, I meant lynch.'<<A New Zealander might say this. You see the 'to' in the infinitive as a linking element? Is that a different role than the way an infinitive normally works? – Dunsanist Jul 04 '16 at 15:21
I don't know. I don't think English linguists use that type of analysis. I got it from a French linguist who studied English called Adamczewski who says it is an "operator" that "links" the first phrase (here a subject and predicate) to what comes after it. Here's the book: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Secret_Architecture_of_English_Gramm.html?id=YSV9GQAACAAJ – Lambie Jul 04 '16 at 15:35
Wow! Interesting-looking book!<<just raised another question for me. Also, I suspect, a controversial one. "How dare this French interloper claim to know more than us about English! What a crackpot!" etc. etc. – Dunsanist Jul 06 '16 at 06:35
Sometimes, more distance from the object improves one's perspective. If you are viewing a landscape, you wouldn't want your nose up against a pebble on the ground. If you chose to read that book, your entire idea of how grammar is understand will change. He defines 3 operators after predicates: Ø, TO et -ING. – Lambie Jul 06 '16 at 15:13
'et'--are you slipping into French there? Is the book written in English or French? – Dunsanist Jul 06 '16 at 15:24
The book is in French. – Lambie Jul 06 '16 at 15:51
That link you gave to Google books appeared to show the book in English. Perhaps the link is misleading. – Dunsanist Jul 07 '16 at 04:28
Look, I don't know. Maybe he wrote it in English. His other book is not in English which is why I referred you to that one. The grand opus is: La grammaire linguistique de l'anglais. – Lambie Jul 07 '16 at 19:52
Perhaps there is an English version. I wonder if he wrote it that way or if it was translated by him or someone else. – Dunsanist Jul 09 '16 at 13:50

'Out to get me.'

1 Answers1