Usage and grammar of 'be to'
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I just came across a passage about Sir Winston Churchill on the Internet.
He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the
Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
I have never been taught about this usage before, putting 'to' right after 'be'.
Anyone can explain the grammar involved, meaning and some examples?
usage
migrated from english.stackexchange.com yesterday
This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I just came across a passage about Sir Winston Churchill on the Internet.
He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the
Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
I have never been taught about this usage before, putting 'to' right after 'be'.
Anyone can explain the grammar involved, meaning and some examples?
usage
migrated from english.stackexchange.com yesterday
This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.
There are two or three things that it might mean, depending on the previous sentences. Can you add more context?
– Peter Shor
2 days ago
That's only a status from a Facebook page. Here's the whole text: The QRH has a proud and distinguished history, and can trace its lineage back to 1685. Perhaps the greatest hussar of them all is Sir Winston Churchill who commissioned into the 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars as a cornet in February 1895. He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
– Grammarfan
2 days ago
Please visit English Language Learners Good Luck.
– Kris
2 days ago
Possible duplicate of "It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?
– choster
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I just came across a passage about Sir Winston Churchill on the Internet.
He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the
Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
I have never been taught about this usage before, putting 'to' right after 'be'.
Anyone can explain the grammar involved, meaning and some examples?
usage
I just came across a passage about Sir Winston Churchill on the Internet.
He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the
Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
I have never been taught about this usage before, putting 'to' right after 'be'.
Anyone can explain the grammar involved, meaning and some examples?
usage
usage
asked 2 days ago
Grammarfan
migrated from english.stackexchange.com yesterday
This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.
migrated from english.stackexchange.com yesterday
This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.
There are two or three things that it might mean, depending on the previous sentences. Can you add more context?
– Peter Shor
2 days ago
That's only a status from a Facebook page. Here's the whole text: The QRH has a proud and distinguished history, and can trace its lineage back to 1685. Perhaps the greatest hussar of them all is Sir Winston Churchill who commissioned into the 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars as a cornet in February 1895. He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
– Grammarfan
2 days ago
Please visit English Language Learners Good Luck.
– Kris
2 days ago
Possible duplicate of "It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?
– choster
yesterday
add a comment |
There are two or three things that it might mean, depending on the previous sentences. Can you add more context?
– Peter Shor
2 days ago
That's only a status from a Facebook page. Here's the whole text: The QRH has a proud and distinguished history, and can trace its lineage back to 1685. Perhaps the greatest hussar of them all is Sir Winston Churchill who commissioned into the 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars as a cornet in February 1895. He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
– Grammarfan
2 days ago
Please visit English Language Learners Good Luck.
– Kris
2 days ago
Possible duplicate of "It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?
– choster
yesterday
There are two or three things that it might mean, depending on the previous sentences. Can you add more context?
– Peter Shor
2 days ago
There are two or three things that it might mean, depending on the previous sentences. Can you add more context?
– Peter Shor
2 days ago
That's only a status from a Facebook page. Here's the whole text: The QRH has a proud and distinguished history, and can trace its lineage back to 1685. Perhaps the greatest hussar of them all is Sir Winston Churchill who commissioned into the 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars as a cornet in February 1895. He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
– Grammarfan
2 days ago
That's only a status from a Facebook page. Here's the whole text: The QRH has a proud and distinguished history, and can trace its lineage back to 1685. Perhaps the greatest hussar of them all is Sir Winston Churchill who commissioned into the 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars as a cornet in February 1895. He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
– Grammarfan
2 days ago
Please visit English Language Learners Good Luck.
– Kris
2 days ago
Please visit English Language Learners Good Luck.
– Kris
2 days ago
Possible duplicate of "It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?
– choster
yesterday
Possible duplicate of "It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?
– choster
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
It's not // was to // , but rather // was // to spend //. The verb is "to spend", and the word "was" marks it as being in the past tense, but it's a special kind of past tense:
In the past, but looking towards the future
This is the past tense, but speaking of an event that is later than the tense of the sentence, and is rather unsurprisingly known as the future-in-the-past tense.
In your example sentence, the action (to spend four years in Bangalore) is something that happened in the past, but it had not yet happened at the point in time described by the sentence. Think of this tense as describing the moment before a past action started.
This is a favourite tense of historians, because history writing often involves standing in a particular point in time, and looking ahead to the consequences of an event, or the later life of a protagonist.
There are two common forms of this tense. The one you quote is possibly the rarer one, and is more formal. Most commonly, this tense is formed by putting "would" in front of the present-tense verb, as in this rewrite of the original sentence:
He would spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
Yes, this does look very like the conditional future tense, but there's a difference: this sentence doesn't have the "but", "if", "except" clause that would be needed to make it a conditional sentence, so it can only be the future-in-the-past.
You might also have noticed that if you use the "would" form, you must follow with the present-tense of the verb; but with the "was" form, you had to use the infinitive (so it's "was to spend", but "would spend").
Incidentally, there is also a present-tense equivalent of this, that we could call a "future-in-the-present" tense, as in these equivalent sentences:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader.
The difference between these is very slight, but in Number 1., we have more of a sense that the action is going to happen almost immediately, where 2. makes no real promise about when. Both can be used in sentences that specify an exact time, in which case they're identical in meaning:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader tonight.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader tonight.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You can think of it as "was told to", or "was commanded to" or "was supposed to", etc. It means that someone in authority decided the subject's fate.
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
It's not // was to // , but rather // was // to spend //. The verb is "to spend", and the word "was" marks it as being in the past tense, but it's a special kind of past tense:
In the past, but looking towards the future
This is the past tense, but speaking of an event that is later than the tense of the sentence, and is rather unsurprisingly known as the future-in-the-past tense.
In your example sentence, the action (to spend four years in Bangalore) is something that happened in the past, but it had not yet happened at the point in time described by the sentence. Think of this tense as describing the moment before a past action started.
This is a favourite tense of historians, because history writing often involves standing in a particular point in time, and looking ahead to the consequences of an event, or the later life of a protagonist.
There are two common forms of this tense. The one you quote is possibly the rarer one, and is more formal. Most commonly, this tense is formed by putting "would" in front of the present-tense verb, as in this rewrite of the original sentence:
He would spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
Yes, this does look very like the conditional future tense, but there's a difference: this sentence doesn't have the "but", "if", "except" clause that would be needed to make it a conditional sentence, so it can only be the future-in-the-past.
You might also have noticed that if you use the "would" form, you must follow with the present-tense of the verb; but with the "was" form, you had to use the infinitive (so it's "was to spend", but "would spend").
Incidentally, there is also a present-tense equivalent of this, that we could call a "future-in-the-present" tense, as in these equivalent sentences:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader.
The difference between these is very slight, but in Number 1., we have more of a sense that the action is going to happen almost immediately, where 2. makes no real promise about when. Both can be used in sentences that specify an exact time, in which case they're identical in meaning:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader tonight.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader tonight.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It's not // was to // , but rather // was // to spend //. The verb is "to spend", and the word "was" marks it as being in the past tense, but it's a special kind of past tense:
In the past, but looking towards the future
This is the past tense, but speaking of an event that is later than the tense of the sentence, and is rather unsurprisingly known as the future-in-the-past tense.
In your example sentence, the action (to spend four years in Bangalore) is something that happened in the past, but it had not yet happened at the point in time described by the sentence. Think of this tense as describing the moment before a past action started.
This is a favourite tense of historians, because history writing often involves standing in a particular point in time, and looking ahead to the consequences of an event, or the later life of a protagonist.
There are two common forms of this tense. The one you quote is possibly the rarer one, and is more formal. Most commonly, this tense is formed by putting "would" in front of the present-tense verb, as in this rewrite of the original sentence:
He would spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
Yes, this does look very like the conditional future tense, but there's a difference: this sentence doesn't have the "but", "if", "except" clause that would be needed to make it a conditional sentence, so it can only be the future-in-the-past.
You might also have noticed that if you use the "would" form, you must follow with the present-tense of the verb; but with the "was" form, you had to use the infinitive (so it's "was to spend", but "would spend").
Incidentally, there is also a present-tense equivalent of this, that we could call a "future-in-the-present" tense, as in these equivalent sentences:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader.
The difference between these is very slight, but in Number 1., we have more of a sense that the action is going to happen almost immediately, where 2. makes no real promise about when. Both can be used in sentences that specify an exact time, in which case they're identical in meaning:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader tonight.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader tonight.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It's not // was to // , but rather // was // to spend //. The verb is "to spend", and the word "was" marks it as being in the past tense, but it's a special kind of past tense:
In the past, but looking towards the future
This is the past tense, but speaking of an event that is later than the tense of the sentence, and is rather unsurprisingly known as the future-in-the-past tense.
In your example sentence, the action (to spend four years in Bangalore) is something that happened in the past, but it had not yet happened at the point in time described by the sentence. Think of this tense as describing the moment before a past action started.
This is a favourite tense of historians, because history writing often involves standing in a particular point in time, and looking ahead to the consequences of an event, or the later life of a protagonist.
There are two common forms of this tense. The one you quote is possibly the rarer one, and is more formal. Most commonly, this tense is formed by putting "would" in front of the present-tense verb, as in this rewrite of the original sentence:
He would spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
Yes, this does look very like the conditional future tense, but there's a difference: this sentence doesn't have the "but", "if", "except" clause that would be needed to make it a conditional sentence, so it can only be the future-in-the-past.
You might also have noticed that if you use the "would" form, you must follow with the present-tense of the verb; but with the "was" form, you had to use the infinitive (so it's "was to spend", but "would spend").
Incidentally, there is also a present-tense equivalent of this, that we could call a "future-in-the-present" tense, as in these equivalent sentences:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader.
The difference between these is very slight, but in Number 1., we have more of a sense that the action is going to happen almost immediately, where 2. makes no real promise about when. Both can be used in sentences that specify an exact time, in which case they're identical in meaning:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader tonight.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader tonight.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It's not // was to // , but rather // was // to spend //. The verb is "to spend", and the word "was" marks it as being in the past tense, but it's a special kind of past tense:
In the past, but looking towards the future
This is the past tense, but speaking of an event that is later than the tense of the sentence, and is rather unsurprisingly known as the future-in-the-past tense.
In your example sentence, the action (to spend four years in Bangalore) is something that happened in the past, but it had not yet happened at the point in time described by the sentence. Think of this tense as describing the moment before a past action started.
This is a favourite tense of historians, because history writing often involves standing in a particular point in time, and looking ahead to the consequences of an event, or the later life of a protagonist.
There are two common forms of this tense. The one you quote is possibly the rarer one, and is more formal. Most commonly, this tense is formed by putting "would" in front of the present-tense verb, as in this rewrite of the original sentence:
He would spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
Yes, this does look very like the conditional future tense, but there's a difference: this sentence doesn't have the "but", "if", "except" clause that would be needed to make it a conditional sentence, so it can only be the future-in-the-past.
You might also have noticed that if you use the "would" form, you must follow with the present-tense of the verb; but with the "was" form, you had to use the infinitive (so it's "was to spend", but "would spend").
Incidentally, there is also a present-tense equivalent of this, that we could call a "future-in-the-present" tense, as in these equivalent sentences:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader.
The difference between these is very slight, but in Number 1., we have more of a sense that the action is going to happen almost immediately, where 2. makes no real promise about when. Both can be used in sentences that specify an exact time, in which case they're identical in meaning:
- According to sources, she is to resign the position of party leader tonight.
- According to sources, she will resign the position of party leader tonight.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
answered yesterday
KrisW
1312
1312
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
KrisW is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You can think of it as "was told to", or "was commanded to" or "was supposed to", etc. It means that someone in authority decided the subject's fate.
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You can think of it as "was told to", or "was commanded to" or "was supposed to", etc. It means that someone in authority decided the subject's fate.
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
You can think of it as "was told to", or "was commanded to" or "was supposed to", etc. It means that someone in authority decided the subject's fate.
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
You can think of it as "was told to", or "was commanded to" or "was supposed to", etc. It means that someone in authority decided the subject's fate.
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
answered yesterday
mRotten
11
11
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
add a comment |
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
Since Churchill actually spent the years 1896—1899 in Bangalore, this is not what the expression means in this case.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
You're right. Oh man, that's embarrassing - easily Google-able. I've corrected my answer. Still, I think the phrasing is deliberately ambiguous, so as not to spoil the story. I only meant to say that "was to" doesn't say anything about what eventually happened.
– mRotten
yesterday
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f185632%2fusage-and-grammar-of-be-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
There are two or three things that it might mean, depending on the previous sentences. Can you add more context?
– Peter Shor
2 days ago
That's only a status from a Facebook page. Here's the whole text: The QRH has a proud and distinguished history, and can trace its lineage back to 1685. Perhaps the greatest hussar of them all is Sir Winston Churchill who commissioned into the 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars as a cornet in February 1895. He was to spend most of the next four years of his life with the Regiment in Bangalore and the North West Frontier in India.
– Grammarfan
2 days ago
Please visit English Language Learners Good Luck.
– Kris
2 days ago
Possible duplicate of "It is to be discussed", what is the infinitive doing in this sentence?
– choster
yesterday