2

the syntax of the following is unclear to me:

  • There was also a donation event, the proceeds to be applied to provide food for the homeless.

My particular difficulty is with the latter clause, which I believe to be a relative clause.

  1. Shouldn't it contain "of which", as in "the proceeds of which to be applied..."?
  2. which function has the "to be" in this clause? it seems missing something. For example, can I say: "there is dinner on the table, the dessert to be eaten last"?
Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
Tamir
  • 85
  • Could you please provide more of the surrounding text – dubious Feb 13 '23 at 10:02
  • 2
    (2) It wouldn't be ungrammatical, but is so formal that it would be considered faintly ridiculous in everyday speech by native speakers. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 13 '23 at 13:00
  • After a charitable event has been mentioned in the conversation, certain things become presupposed; one is the generation of proceeds, which may be mentioned anarthrously. The phrase proceeds to be shared is short for (of which the) proceeds (are) to be shared, in telegraphic/headline/advertising style, which tends to take Conversational Deletion to the clausal or phrasal level to save words and make slogans. – John Lawler Feb 13 '23 at 16:21
  • @EdwinAshworth Why did they choose to write this syntactic monstrosity? Answer: because they learned Latin. Latin has an equivalent construct (an ablative absolute with a gerundive) that is idiomatic and fairly common. This is exactly how you translate such a construction very literally into English. Some Latin teachers will actually recommend or even require this painfully literal translation, since it demonstrates that you fully understand the syntax of the original Latin. – alphabet Feb 14 '23 at 04:21
  • (A further note: the "to be ___ed" translation is common for the gerundive because the gerundive is actually a future passive participle and the sense of obligation is only (strongly) implied. "(Is) to be ___ed" is also a passive construction where the sense of obligation is implicit, so Latin teachers tend to abuse it when translating gerundives. Combine that with translating ablative absolutes (common in Latin) into nominative absolutes (rare in English), and this is what you get. Ugh.) – alphabet Feb 14 '23 at 04:26
  • 1
    It's an awkward sentence, to be sure. Things have been done to it that should not have been. Yes, it's a reduced relative clause, yes, it's missing of which, and yes, it should be a tensed clause, not an infinitive. I think the writer or speaker just wanted to get it out fast and get on with it. This is in the nature of an after-afterthought, and grammar is far less of a consideration than CYA. – John Lawler Mar 15 '23 at 15:30
  • For me, the structure is basically appositional. – Lambie Mar 15 '23 at 16:43

1 Answers1

1

That clause is a nominative absolute (see Wikipedia). The meaning is clear if we rewrite it as a separate sentence:

There was also a donation event. The proceeds were to be applied to provide food for the homeless.

"Is to be" is an idiom used to give commands or describe plans (see Britannica). The latter meaning seems more likely here:

There was also a donation event. The proceeds were planned to be applied to provide food for the homeless.

On its own, the sentence also likely implies that the plan was followed, but that depends on context.

Nominative absolutes are more common in very formal writing. But this one is convoluted by any standard.

alphabet
  • 18,217
  • The proceeds were planned to be applied is not semantically valid. – Lambie Feb 13 '23 at 19:15
  • It sounds valid to me, but "intended" may be a better fit. – alphabet Feb 13 '23 at 20:50
  • It was planned that the proceeds would be applied. People plan things or things are planned by people. Proceeds can't plan anything. – Lambie Feb 13 '23 at 23:25
  • "The proceeds planned" would be incorrect. But I wrote "the proceeds were planned," which is passive voice and does not imply that the proceeds were doing the planning. – alphabet Feb 13 '23 at 23:50
  • 1
    This usage is not uncommon--take this TechCrunch article: "From what we understand, the deal was planned to be announced officially on June 19." – alphabet Feb 13 '23 at 23:54
  • 1
    Or from the NYT: "Another pool is planned to be added next year." – alphabet Feb 14 '23 at 00:04
  • If you take the passive sentence "Another pool is planned [by some agent] to be added next year" and make it active, it doesn't fly: [Some agent] plans another pool to be added next year. OR: "The deal was planned [by x} to be announced officially on June 19th", [X] planned the deal to be announced officially on June 19th. The first doesn't work (but is speech, not writing) and the second changes the meaning. – Lambie Feb 14 '23 at 15:40
  • 1
    @Lambie Yes, it doesn't really make sense if you turn it into the active voice, but it's an idiomatic usage nonetheless. This usage is quite old: here are two examples from 1921. – alphabet Feb 14 '23 at 15:59
  • It should be possible to turn all passives into actives. If you can't, then, the utterance doesn't work. And just finding examples, doesn't work for me. Cheers. – Lambie Feb 14 '23 at 16:34