1

I was wondering if I could use this construction:

The President is to have visited Italy by today

I know that if I typed The President was to have + p.part. it would mean he should have but He didn't

Eventually, May I use this kinda constructions passively? He is to have been visited...by today.

tchrist
  • 134,759
Francis Rick Onorato
  • 163
  • 3
    Your particular example looks a bit weird, but I can't argue with The right thing for John to have done is to have arrived by now. Whatever - obviously such constructions are grammatical. It's just that there aren't many contexts where they make sense (most native speakers would probably say The President was* to have visited Italy by today* in any conceivable real-world context). – FumbleFingers Apr 06 '17 at 12:17
  • Yeah, Indeed, according to what I know, they're used in formal writings and so on. Thank you for your helping. I wouldn't use them while talking too. Too weird, too long and too much time required thinking of it to say it correctly. – Francis Rick Onorato Apr 06 '17 at 12:31
  • 2
    There's discussion of the construction here, wherein I see the equally uncontestable (if somewhat ungainly) example Sean Connery is coming here at 10 tomorrow. By the time he arrives, I'm to have been here for 2 hours, just to make sure that no fans can get in and lie in wait for him. – FumbleFingers Apr 06 '17 at 14:23
  • Related. – tchrist Feb 25 '24 at 17:45
  • Part of it is that alternatives like "should" or "will" are more common: "The President will have visited Italy by today" has the same meaning IMO. Part of the problem is that "The President is to have visited Italy by today" suggests you are unaware of an event which has already happened and which you should know about. This construction is normally used with generally-known future events, not secret things or topics of uncertain truthfulness. – Stuart F Feb 26 '24 at 12:58

0 Answers0