Understanding noun phrase post modification: to-clause none subject gap (direct object)

Hi, Philip,

@Philip posted:

On page 292, the authors provide the following example for a noun phrase to-clause post modifier (non-subject gap): I had a little bit to eat (conv) <direct object>: I at a little bit to eat.

Do you mean to say that the sentence appearing in the book is I ate a little bit?

@Philip posted:

On page 292, the authors provide the following example for a noun phrase to-clause post modifier (non-subject gap): I had a little bit to eat (conv) <direct object>: I at a little bit to eat.

I'm struggling to understand how 'to eat' is actually in direct object position - is it in relation to 'bit'?

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Do you mean to say that the sentence appearing in the book is I ate a little bit?

Hi, Philip and Gustavo—I found an online edition of the book Philip is citing, Gustavo, and "at" is indeed a typo; the authors wrote "ate."  They explain how "to eat" works as a postmodifier of "bit" with the sentence "I ate a little bit."

Philip, "to eat" functions as an infinitival relative clause in the sentence "I had a little bit to eat." "To eat" is not a direct object. Rather, "bit" functions as the direct object of "eat" within the infinitival relative clause.

Let's take a similar case. "I have things to eat__" has essentially the same meaning as "I have things that I can eat__." In each sentence, "things" is postmodified by a relative clause with a "gap" in direct-object position.

Hi, David and Gustavo - apologies for the typo and thanks for correcting.

I am at about 80% in terms of understanding and processing your comments.

Therefore, am I correct to assume most infinitival non-finite relative clauses don't have a subject gap and therefore, in general, the gap will be in direct object position?

Hence, in the example "bit" is in the direct object position of "to eat"?

Interestingly, "to eat bit" sounds rather strange to me as a native speaker of English, but I think I am starting to understand the syntax.

Would it literally be translated as:  "I had a little to eat bit"?

@Philip posted:

I am at about 80% in terms of understanding and processing your comments.

Therefore, am I correct to assume most infinitival non-finite relative clauses don't have a subject gap and therefore, in general, the gap will be in direct object position?

Hi, Philip—An infinitival relative clause may have a gap in either subject or object position, and sometimes it is possible for an infinitival relative clause to be parsed either way.

For example, about a decade ago, Navi (a long-time member here) and I discussed the sentence "He is a man to trust." Normally, that would mean that people should trust him. However, a subject gap is also possible. Consider:

• It is not in his nature to doubt. He is a man to trust.

In that context, "He is a man to trust" essentially means "He is a man who trusts things and people," where the gap is in subject position. Usually, when the gap in an infinitival relative is in subject position, the infinitival clause is passive. E.g.:

• He is a man to be trusted.

Although that sentence has the same meaning as "He is a man to trust" where the gap is in direct-object position, the gap of "He is a man to be trusted" is still in subject position. Compare: "People trust him" --> "He is trusted by people."

@Philip posted:

Hence, in the example "bit" is in the direct object position of "to eat"?

No, the silenced relative pronoun which occupied the gap of the infinitival relative clause is co-referent with "a little bit," the noun phrase that is the antecedent of that silenced relative pronoun.

@Philip posted:

Interestingly, "to eat bit" sounds rather strange to me as a native speaker of English, but I think I am starting to understand the syntax.

No, the phrase is "to eat a little bit." While "bit" is the head of the noun phrase forming antecedent of the direct object of "eat" in the infinitival relative clause, "bit" is not the entire noun phrase. The noun phrase includes "a" and "little."

@Philip posted:

Would it literally be translated as:  "I had a little to eat bit"?

No, having a little bit to eat relates to eating a little bit.

Hi, David,

Thank you for taking time to explain. I will take some time to digest and will re-post if I don't fully grasp.