Skip to main content

What does this part of the sentence below mean? "for things to be the same/normal"

▪ The trauma will be too heavy for her for things to be the same/normal.

Is the sentence below correct? If it's, what does it mean? I am confused about how this interrogative sentence below formed. Are two questions merged in one sentence? 

▪ Where was she without me for this to even be possible?

Last edited by Gustavo, Contributor
Original Post

Hi, Toaha,

Thank you for including the source (Twitter). However, I deleted it because I found it offensive, especially towards the end. I know it was not your intention, but in future please abstain from publishing material (other than literature or news) expressing views which can hurt readers' feelings. Thank you.

I will focus on your questions without making reference to the matter.

@Toaha posted:

What does this part of the sentence below mean? "for things to be the same/normal"

▪ The trauma will be too heavy for her for things to be the same/normal.

for things to be the same/normal means for the situation to get back to normal, to restore things as they used to be. The sentence "The trauma will be too heavy for her for things to be the same/normal" could be paraphrased as "Her experience was so traumatic that it will hard for her to recover her normal life."

@Toaha posted:

Is the sentence below correct? If it's, what does it mean? I am confused about how this interrogative sentence below formed. Are two questions merged in one sentence? 

▪ Where was she without me for this to even be possible?

There is only one question (which is correct) containing a clause (which is not an embedded question). The asker suggests that, if he had been there, nothing wrong would have happened.

Suppose your baby is in charge of a babysitter and he/she gets hurt. You can complain to the babysitter by saying:

- Where was the baby without you for this to be possible? (Where was the baby alone so that he/she could get hurt?)

Last edited by Gustavo, Contributor

The infinitival clause "for something/somebody to V-infinitive" can express purpose or result. Being infinitival, the clause is tenseless. For example:

- I know you want to learn English. For this to be possible (For your learning English to be possible / If you want that to come true), you have to study a lot. (Here, "for this to be possible" expresses a present purpose: the purpose of learning English.)

In my example above, "for this to be possible" expresses a past result. Let me change the complaint to the babysitter a little bit for you to understand it better:

- What were you doing for this to be possible? (What were you doing that, as a result, the baby got hurt?)

Some related examples with other subjects and verbs:

- For you to learn English, you have to study a lot. (If you want to learn English, you have to study a lot.)
For the baby to get hurt, the babysitter must have been distracted doing other things. (It must have been as a result of the babysitter's distraction that the baby got hurt.)

Last edited by Gustavo, Contributor
@Toaha posted:

Can this sentence "The trauma will be too heavy for her for things to be the same/normal" be written like this? "The trauma will be too heavy for things to be the same/normal for her."?

Yes, you can say that, with a slight change of meaning:

1. The trauma will be too heavy for her = She will go through an excessively traumatic experience.

2. ... for things to be the same/normal for her = She will find it hard (or impossible) to get back to her normal life.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×