why “to” in "The first autogyro to fly successfully in 1923."?

37 posts / 0 new
Last post

i was reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor

only to read their sentence “The first autogyro to fly successfully in 1923."

question: why not write "The first autogyro flew successfully in 1923."

Help

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

 

GeorgeThomas wrote:

i was reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor

only to read their sentence “The first autogyro to fly successfully in 1923."

question: why not write "The first autogyro flew successfully in 1923."

Help

Because they were using it to denote an illustration of the first one to fly.

The first autogyro to fly successfully in 1923.

Think about it.

美国鬼子

think about it?

a little word like "to" could carry so many meanings?

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

YEAH Smile

~~“Feelings are just visitors, let them come and go” ~~.

GeorgeThomas wrote:

think about it?

a little word like "to" could carry so many meanings?

No, to means toward. It means forward motion.

美国鬼子

"Autogyro"? Is that a kind of Greek fast food?

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

The "to" in this case doesn't imply motion, it's how the infinitive is formed in English: the verb "to fly", equivalent of the French "voler" or German "fliegen". We tend to use prepositions where other Indo-European languages use endings. One of the many peculiarities of English.

AndrewKilleen wrote:

The "to" in this case doesn't imply motion, it's how the infinitive is formed in English: the verb "to fly", equivalent of the French "voler" or German "fliegen". We tend to use prepositions where other Indo-European languages use endings. One of the many peculiarities of English.

The infinitive to fly certainly does indicate motion.

美国鬼子

what? two native speakers are contradictive again...
who shall i listen to?

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

GeorgeThomas wrote:
what? two native speakers are contradictive again... who shall i listen to?

There is no such word as contradictive.

美国鬼子

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing  or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

AndrewKilleen wrote:

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

It does not help at all. Who cares what they do in French and you are wrong the infinitive to fly does indicate motion.

美国鬼子

zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

The "to" in this case doesn't imply motion, it's how the infinitive is formed in English: the verb "to fly", equivalent of the French "voler" or German "fliegen". We tend to use prepositions where other Indo-European languages use endings. One of the many peculiarities of English.

The infinitive to fly certainly does indicate motion.

The motion is implied by the "fly," not the "to."

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

It does not help at all. Who cares what they do in French and you are wrong the infinitive to fly does indicate motion.

I think his point is that the "to" simply flags the infinitive. As in "The first look my new boss gave me was also the first look ever to freeze my piss." Here the infinitive suggests trhe cessation of all motion.

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

Xylophone wrote:
zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

It does not help at all. Who cares what they do in French and you are wrong the infinitive to fly does indicate motion.

I think his point is that the "to" simply flags the infinitive. As in "The first look my new boss gave me was also the first look ever to freeze my piss." Here the infinitive suggests trhe cessation of all motion.

However, something must be moving, molecules, in order to achieve a freeze.

美国鬼子

If your point is that, historically, "to" came into use as the marker of the infinitive in English because there was a figurative sense of motion in the speakers' consciousness, then you're likely right. "Cuthbert went to Londinium."---physical motion and no infinitive. "Cuthbert's shrew wife was the first wench to cuckhold him."---the wife came to transit from a state of fidelity to infidelity. Works for me. (The explanation; not debauching poor Cuthbert's wife.)

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

things are getting worse.

i need a simple answer! teachars!

please!

Help

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

zhenlai wrote:
Xylophone wrote:
zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

It does not help at all. Who cares what they do in French and you are wrong the infinitive to fly does indicate motion.

I think his point is that the "to" simply flags the infinitive. As in "The first look my new boss gave me was also the first look ever to freeze my piss." Here the infinitive suggests trhe cessation of all motion.

However, something must be moving, molecules, in order to achieve a freeze.

yesterday, my front tooth broke a bit.

Cray 2

you wana hear the story?

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

zhenlai wrote:
Xylophone wrote:
zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

It does not help at all. Who cares what they do in French and you are wrong the infinitive to fly does indicate motion.

I think his point is that the "to" simply flags the infinitive. As in "The first look my new boss gave me was also the first look ever to freeze my piss." Here the infinitive suggests trhe cessation of all motion.

However, something must be moving, molecules, in order to achieve a freeze.

my gf:what's your jj doing in my vagina?

me: to

her: whats to?

me: it's doing a motion

her: k, but why to?

me: teacher told me to = motion

her: but you have ED, dont you?

me: no, my jj's molecules to,so even if my jj is static, i do sex you, to you, motion you, molecule you.

her: wtf....i'm sleeping now

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

GeorgeThomas wrote:
zhenlai wrote:
Xylophone wrote:
zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

It's not a contradiction. The infinitive is being used because it's a caption, so there's no main verb, or it's implied: "[This is a picture of] the first autogyro to fly successfully." The motion in "to fly" comes from the flying bit, not the "to"- compare "to freeze"- no motion there but still "to". In English we form infinitives by putting "to" before the verb in its basic form (the "lemma"). Other languages do it by changing or adding to the word, so in French you often add "-r" or "-er", which is why it's "voler".

Hope that helps.

It does not help at all. Who cares what they do in French and you are wrong the infinitive to fly does indicate motion.

I think his point is that the "to" simply flags the infinitive. As in "The first look my new boss gave me was also the first look ever to freeze my piss." Here the infinitive suggests trhe cessation of all motion.

However, something must be moving, molecules, in order to achieve a freeze.

yesterday, my front tooth broke a bit.

Cray 2

you wana hear the story?

You snagged it on your ol' lady's IUD?

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

“The first man to sit staticly for 50 hours in 1923."

no motions

Crazy

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

GeorgeThomas wrote:

“The first man to sit staticly for 50 hours in 1923."

no motions

Crazy

In order to sit you must provide motion. Stop the stupidity. All infinitives provide motion of some kind.

美国鬼子

GeorgeThomas wrote:

“The first man to sit staticly for 50 hours in 1923."

no motions

Crazy

He moved into a seated posture and continued it for the time specified. The former is literal motion; the latter figurative.

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

another questions:

why do academic journals always have the strange format: 2 columns

like this one:

why do they not write the journals in normal format?

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

Academic journals are run by highly anal people with OCD.

"A society with no other scale than the legal one is not worthy of man."---Solzhenitsyn

I've looked this up. The first phrases where the "to-infinitive" was used were phrases where it expressed purpose: eg "I want to explain it to you." The "to" was closer to "for" as in "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam." Verbs of motion and ceasing motion used the "bare-infinitive" with no "to" for a long time, until the usage spread and became generalised.

 

So there is absolutely, unequivocally no sense of motion in the "to" element of "the first man to fly an autogyro." And anyone who thinks languages were invented by people thinking about the vibration of molecules is possibly not a trustworthy source.

AndrewKilleen wrote:

I've looked this up. The first phrases where the "to-infinitive" was used were phrases where it expressed purpose: eg "I want to explain it to you." The "to" was closer to "for" as in "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam." Verbs of motion and ceasing motion used the "bare-infinitive" with no "to" for a long time, until the usage spread and became generalised.

So there is absolutely, unequivocally no sense of motion in the "to" element of "the first man to fly an autogyro." And anyone who thinks languages were invented by people thinking about the vibration of molecules is possibly not a trustworthy source.

Your post illustrates just how little you know about the English language.

美国鬼子

zhenlai wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

I've looked this up. The first phrases where the "to-infinitive" was used were phrases where it expressed purpose: eg "I want to explain it to you." The "to" was closer to "for" as in "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam." Verbs of motion and ceasing motion used the "bare-infinitive" with no "to" for a long time, until the usage spread and became generalised.

So there is absolutely, unequivocally no sense of motion in the "to" element of "the first man to fly an autogyro." And anyone who thinks languages were invented by people thinking about the vibration of molecules is possibly not a trustworthy source.

Your post illustrates just how little you know about the English language.

just your "one man's opinion"?

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

GeorgeThomas, if you genuinely wanted to know about this odd quirk of the English language, what I've given you is the correct answer. For what it's worth, I studied linguistics at Cambridge University. Now, zhenlai will explain why this is wrong, and language is all about the vibration of molecules and the hurling of insults. You can choose who you want to listen to. I'm out.

AndrewKilleen wrote:

GeorgeThomas, if you genuinely wanted to know about this odd quirk of the English language, what I've given you is the correct answer. For what it's worth, I studied linguistics at Cambridge University. Now, zhenlai will explain why this is wrong, and language is all about the vibration of molecules and the hurling of insults. You can choose who you want to listen to. I'm out.

i choose yo

Kiss 3

i want to eliminate all my male fans. 1st one to be excuted: bambitcho

thanks

GeorgeThomas wrote:
AndrewKilleen wrote:

GeorgeThomas, if you genuinely wanted to know about this odd quirk of the English language, what I've given you is the correct answer. For what it's worth, I studied linguistics at Cambridge University. Now, zhenlai will explain why this is wrong, and language is all about the vibration of molecules and the hurling of insults. You can choose who you want to listen to. I'm out.

i choose yo

Kiss 3

You choose yourself?

美国鬼子