(The goal of) his visit is to spend time

Question

A Washington Times news article starts as follows:

The White House said residents of the Oregon town where a gunman killed nine people at a community college have “nothing to fear” from President Obama’s scheduled trip to their community on Friday.

Told that some residents of Roseburg that Mr. Obama intends to politicize the shootings, White House press secretary Josh Earnest replied, “Those individuals have nothing to fear.”

“The president’s made clear that the goal of his visit is to spend time with the families of those who were so deeply affected by this terrible tragedy,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s the purpose of the president’s trip.”

As for the boldfaced portion, I'd like to know if "the goal of" can be omitted without changing the portion's meaning as follows:

The president’s made clear that his visit is to spend time with the families of those who were so deeply affected by this terrible tragedy

It sounds a little clumsy. Try "he's visiting to spend time ..." — Barmar, Jun 14 '17 at 20:20
…his visit is to spend time is neither correct nor idomatic. In my view the real question should be why you'd want to drop the goal of…?
If you were going to change the original to Barmar's he's visiting to spend time… why would you leave the semantically identical …the purpose of the president’s trip, please?

That sounds doubly true if you consider that he's visiting in order to spend time… would convey the same semantics more idomatically. — Robbie Goodwin, Jun 26 '17 at 15:46
@RobbieGoodwin Because I came across similar constructions. For example, "Officially, the visit is to pay respects following the death of King Abdullah" in this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/barack-obama-27-strong-delegation-pay-respects-saudi-arabias-new-king — JK2, Jun 27 '17 at 06:00
I know nothing about your other constructions but that Guardian article is clearly not the place to look for examples of good English.
If we wanted to shorten … the goal of his visit is to… the natural choice would be … the goal is to…, not … the visit is to… — Robbie Goodwin, Jun 27 '17 at 14:00
@RobbieGoodwin Well, I think that The Guardian is one of the most respected newspapers in Britain and the world. So I'm not sure why you say it's not the place to look for good English. If you're right, why news articles are a main source for corpus data for linguists? — JK2, Jun 27 '17 at 15:12
@RobbieGoodwin Also, CGEL by Pullum at 1256 shows this sentence as a valid one: The grid is to prevent the cattle from wandering off. Do you think that this one should be changed to The purpose of the grid is to prevent the cattle from wandering off.? — JK2, Jun 27 '17 at 15:15
Uh… thanks and though it would be better to use the purpose of the grid, grids are not visits and nor are they comparable.
Among many another difference a grid doesn't need a purpose; it can be seen to exist in and of itself. Even if it's only aimless wandering, you cannot visit anywhere without a purpose. — Robbie Goodwin, Jun 27 '17 at 19:12
@RobbieGoodwin You lost me when you said, 'a grid doesn't need a purpose; it can be seen to exist in and of itself.' People made the 'grid' and with a purpose. It's not like the 'grid' is there for no reason as part of nature or something. In fact, CGEL said this about the sentence: "In addition a to-infinitival can occur as purpose complement, replaceable by a purpose PP such as for the purpose of...", where the to-infinitive refers to to prevent and the sentence can be rewritten as follows: The grid is for the purpose of preventing the cattle from wandering off. — JK2, Jun 28 '17 at 02:56
So you're really asking whether the infinitive can be used after "visit" to denote purpose, e.g. “We went to Florida to see our grandparents”, and President Obama *visited* Oregon *to meet and spend time* with the families that had been affected by the terrible tragedy. Note the omission of "made clear that" P.S In the newspaper article, "his visit", visit is not used as a verb — Mari-Lou A, Jun 28 '17 at 05:34
@Mari-LouA Yes, but not just a to-infinitive but the construction 'be + to-infinitive". — JK2, Jun 28 '17 at 05:37
Give an example. For instance, "A serrated knife is to cut bread" is ungrammatical, which is why we tend to say "A serrated knife *is for* cutting bread", or "A serrated knife *is used to cut* bread with" — Mari-Lou A, Jun 28 '17 at 05:42
@Mari-LouA Is it grammatical to say "A serrated knife is to cut bread with"? — JK2, Jun 28 '17 at 05:53
I don't think so, or it's borderline because its meaning is clearly understandable. Some might say it's an elliptical sentence... I prefer the last two examples in the comment above. You could say "[The reason (why)](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/119877/do-you-need-the-why-in-thats-the-reason-why) bread knives are serrated *is to make* cutting bread easier" But I think you should edit the question, and illustrate better why you think the infinitive to express purpose can be used after a noun or noun phrase such as "that his visit". — Mari-Lou A, Jun 28 '17 at 06:10
@Mari-LouA In the question I'm not thinking "the infinitive to express purpose can be used after a noun or noun phrase." I'm not even asking this generalization. I'm asking about the one specific sentence quoted in the question, and simply trying to figure out why it should or should not be allowed to omit "the goal/purpose of" in that specific sentence when you might treat other similar examples differently. — JK2, Jun 28 '17 at 06:22
OK, fine. The question as it stands is barren of research, but there's a bounty so it will be protected. — Mari-Lou A, Jun 28 '17 at 06:25
As an aside, 'nothing to fear' seems an odd phrase to apply to the presidential visit, after a shooting! — peterG, Jun 28 '17 at 11:57
Sorry JK2; I didn’t notice that comment before. Still, you are rather seriously mistaken about The Guardian. In Britain that paper is frequently lampooned as The Grauniad not because it’s famous for typographical errors, but because many journalists consider its content worth no more than its typography… so you should be very, very sure it’s not the place to look for good English — Robbie Goodwin, Jun 28 '17 at 23:20
Please expand your box, JK2. The grid prolly was made to keep cattle from crossing it. Even if we knew that for a fact it would not be relevant. A grid exists, whether or not it has a purpose, unless you see no difference between cast iron and grammatical rules… it might have been made as a design study or for practice and any such consideration is irrelevant; the thing exists. A visit isn’t physically or conceptually concrete, nor iron nor anything like either. It has no existence in itself. It cannot be without both one or more visitors and a purpose underlying their actions — Robbie Goodwin, Jun 28 '17 at 23:20
@Araucaria I think you meant Robbie. FWIW I agree with your characterisation of the Guardian - I do read it, though I'm not exactly a 'Guardian Reader'. And I note your username. — peterG, Jul 02 '17 at 11:25
@peterG Oops, I did indeed! Sorry for the misdirection :-) You're right about the username! — Araucaria - Him, Jul 02 '17 at 11:51
@RobbieGoodwin Yes, the Guardian used to be ribbed about its typographical errors, but it is nonetheless a highly regarded newspaper with excellent writing. It puts most of its rivals to shame. Grammar has nothing to do with spelling, of course though. :) — Araucaria - Him, Jul 02 '17 at 11:52

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Jun 28 '17 at 11:50

You can omit it but it changes the meaning slightly. It's also more awkward.

“The president’s made clear that the goal of his visit is to spend time with the families of those who were so deeply affected by this terrible tragedy...”

To spend is the infinitive form of the verb, being used as a noun parallel with goal. What is his goal? To spend time w/these people.

“The president’s made clear that his visit is to spend time with the families of those who were so deeply affected by this terrible tragedy...”

Here, "What is his visit?" cannot be answered with "To spend time" but with some expansion: "an occasion to spend time" &c. What's happening grammatically is that this phrasing is an elision of "in order to".

The other editors note that it's more awkward than usual. That's because it's also eliding "being made" or "occurring" as well. It's not incomprehensible or wrong per se, but it's a lot to leave out and there are better ways to say it... like the way the spokesman did in the first place.

(The goal of) his visit is to spend time

1 Answers1