0

I have a question about the abstract pattern "[verb1] to [verb2]" here:

The slaying of Hugo Pinell, 71, triggered a riot Wednesday that grew to involve about 70 inmates at a maximum security prison east of Sacramento, said California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokeswoman Dana Simas.

I am confused about "grew to involve about 70 inmates". Take another example:

He jumped to look over the fence.

In the second example, the act of jumping was done to perform the looking over the fence. So, according to abstract pattern "[verb1] to [verb2]", [verb1] was done to do [verb2].

But in the first example "riot that grew to involve 70 inmates", the fire growing ([verb1]) was not done to do the involving ([verb2]). It is more like, [verb1] happened, then [verb2] followed.

It seems that the "*[verb1] to [verb2]" pattern has two different interpretations. Am I wrong?

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
meatie
  • 7,585
  • 19
  • 81
  • 151

1 Answers1

0

Looks about right...

In verb "to" verb, sometimes a simple "in order" is missing. So, "jumped to look" is really "jumped in order to look".

Now, about "grew to involve"... It looks of the same pattern as "swells to cover" or "shows to contain". There is no preconceived purpose in the growing (or swelling, or showing), so we can't say that the 'in order' is missing here. Then what is it? It's an infinitive in the role of a noun or an adverb. "Grew to involve about 70..." -- "grew [how much?] to involve about 70..."

Victor Bazarov
  • 8,449
  • 1
  • 17
  • 25