Every group will send its leading humorists to represent it.

About the infinitive in red, is it:

(1) adjectival (i.e. its leading humorists that/who represent it）
(2) adverbial (i.e. in order to represent it)

?

(2)

"To represent it" is an adverbial in this sentence. It expresses purpose.

This description from Swan fits it exactly:

"An infinitive can be used after a noun, or an indefinite pronoun like something, to explain the purpose of a particular thing: what it does or what somebody does with it. The noun or pronoun can be the subject of the infinitive:

Have you got a key to open this door? (The key will open the door.)

It was awar to end all wars.

I'd likesomething to stop my toothache.

Rachel
_______
*Practical English Usage, Third Edition, by Michael Swan. Oxford 2005

quote:

"An infinitive can be used after a noun, or an indefinite pronoun like something, to explain the purpose of a particular thing: what it does or what somebody does with it. The noun or pronoun can be the subject of the infinitive:

If the infinitive explains the noun in front, and the noun or pronoun is the subject of it, isn't it adjectival, a modifier of the noun?

It was a war to end all wars=>It was a war which ended/should end all wars.

I'd like something to stop my toothache=I'd like something which stops/can stop my toothache.

If the infinitives were adverbial, those could be replaced with 'in order to', but these sound awkward, don't you think?

In order to end all wars, it was a war.(?)

In order to stop my toothache, I'd like something. (?)

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/phraseformulas.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Taka,

Any further comments?

Richard, are you there? What do you think?

I agree that the sentence about the war is confusing. My guess is that Swan interpreted it this way:

"¢ It was a war whose purpose was to end all wars.

Even this sentence, though, can be interpreted as adjectival to "war."

Your point is well taken.
_______

As for the sentence about the toothache, I see that as adverbial in the sentence you wrote:

"¢ I'd like something in order to stop / for the purpose of stopping my toothache.

Rachel

quote:

I'd like something in order to stop / for the purpose of stopping my toothache.

But if 'would like' were replaced with 'know', for example, this wouldn't work, would it?

I know something to stop toothaches=>I know something in order to stop toothaches (??).

However, this would work; the adjectival version:

I know something to stop toothaches=>I know something that can stop/ should stop toothaches.

I've been offline because of phone problems, Taka, but now I'm back.

Rachel's explanations are right on. As for your last example and question, you're right in saying that the phrase in order to won't work in that instance. However, I see what you've got as adjectival (in two kinds of relative clauses):

I know something the purpose of which / whose purpose is to stop toothaches.

I know something that can stop toothaches.

Richard

You're back, Richard. Great.

Richard, what do you think about this one? Is this infinitive adjectival, or adverbial?

Growing up in a society, we learn how to use gestures, glances, slight changes in tone of voice, and other auxiliary communication devices to alter or emphasize what we say and do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Taka,

I see this as adverbial, my friend. In this context, to is the short form of saying in order to, which makes it adverbial for me.

By the way, I'm glad that you're glad I'm back online!

Richard

The city was surrounded by asphalt, brick, and all the other artificial things characteristic of civilization .

We have shrimps, oysters, and other things that live in the sea .

As you can see the parts in red, they sort of generalize what the lists of the items are, what he/she is talking about, and I'm pretty much sure that you are familiar with this kind of expressions.

By the same token, don't you think the sentence in question can be interpreted as this?

Growing up in a society, we learn how to use gestures, glances, slight changes in tone of voice, and other auxiliary communication devices that can alter or emphasize what we say and do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Taka,

Yes, Taka. The sentence in question, which you've altered from the original presented, contains a relative (adjective) clause just as the others you've cited do.

By the way, here's an interesting side note:

I noticed you'd written shrimps instead of shrimp as the plural form of this noun, regularizing what most educated speakers consider an irregular noun just as sheep, moose, and deer are considered irregular with no addition of the -s in the plural form.

Before rushing to comment on this, I checked into it and found out that shrimps is now considered an acceptable alternative to shrimp as the plural form. That really surprised me.

Now I'm asking myself, if that regularization has happened for shrimp, why hasn't it happened for the other so-called irregular nouns I've mentioned above? Hmm ... Very curious!

Richard

quote:

The sentence in question, which you've altered from the original presented, contains a relative (adjective) clause just as the others you've cited do.

So isn't it more possible to take the infinitive 'to alter...' as adjectival?

quote:

By the way, here's an interesting side note:

I noticed you'd written shrimps instead of shrimp as the plural form of this noun, regularizing what most educated speakers consider an irregular noun just as sheep, moose, and deer are considered irregular with no addition of the -s in the plural form.

Yes, I knew that traditional rule. But I googled around to see if it was OK or not, and found that it might be acceptable. So I used the plural form as I used the plural 'oysters' as well.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Taka,

According to Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary, the plural of 'shrimp' can be either 'shrimp' or 'shrimps.'

Thank you all very much!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Samson,

Since the part of the sentence in question tells us the purpose, Taka, I would consider it to be adverbial. That part of the sentence doesn't describe other auxiliary communication devices the way following this with that or which does.

As for how you decided to use shrimps instead of shrimp, that was a very insightful way of going about it. But as I've cautioned people before, even though things show up on Google, you still need to inquire from reliable sources to see if something is acceptable or not. In this case you were right!

Richard

quote:

Since the part of the sentence in question tells us the purpose, Taka, I would consider it to be adverbial. That part of the sentence doesn't describe other auxiliary communication devices the way following this with that or which does.

Hmm...if the sentence were:

even children know gestures, glances, slight changes in tone of voice, and other auxiliary communication devices to alter or emphasize what we say and do.

then you would say 'to alter...' is adjectival, wouldn't you, Richard?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Taka,

If I account for a small ellipted section, I can see this as adjectival now. Here's what I mean:

Even children know gestures, glances, slight changes in tone of voice, and other auxiliary communication devices (that are used) to alter or emphasize what we say and do.

Richard

quote:

Now I'm asking myself, if that regularization has happened for shrimp, why hasn't it happened for the other so-called irregular nouns I've mentioned above? Hmm ... Very curious!

Here are The American Heritage Book of English Usage's interpretations about this puzzle:

Some nouns, mainly names of birds, fishes, and mammals, have the same form in the plural as in the singular: bison, deer, moose, sheep, swine. Some words that follow this pattern, such as antelope, cod, crab, elk, fish, flounder, grouse, herring, quail, reindeer, salmon, shrimp, and trout, also have regular plurals ending in -s: antelope, antelopes; fish, fishes; salmon, salmons. Normally in such cases the unchanged plural indicates that the animal in question is being considered collectively, while the plural ending in -s is used specifically to indicate different varieties or species or kinds: We caught six fish but Half a dozen fishes inhabit the lake. By far, however, most animal names take a regular plural: dogs, cats, lions, monkeys, whales.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/81.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Joan,

Yes, Joan. That's great information, which I knew of course. That wasn't my point. My point was that when somebody says he's having shrimp for dinner, I won't feel it unusual, but I will feel it unusual if he says he's having shrimps for dinner. It's okay to say oysters for dinner or clams for dinner, but shrimps has surprised me, even though I now realize it's considered "acceptable."

Thanks again for the extra information that I'm sure our members will appreciate.

Richard

Richard,

So getting way back to the first example:

Every group will send its leading humorists to represent it.

do you think the infinitive 'to represent it' is adverbial?