I wanted to describe a helmet visor which can have separate settings, opaque and transparent. Thus I wrote the following sentence.
She switched her visor to transparent.
I thought it an ellipsis of a noun phrase:
She switched her visor to the transparent mode.
However after my spellcheck irritated me with being unhappy with my construction I started investigating. At the very least there are barely occurrences where the adjective after switched to is not followed by a noun it is modifying.
The corpus search indicates that as well as the ngram. Although there are ngrams with switch to color, they are almost exclusively followed by a noun, the same applies to the clear hits, only that they include hits where 'clear' is a verb.
Obviously I expected transparent and opaque to be dwarfed by the colors in the ngram, but there was not a single hit. Which is strange, since ngram does not care about the following words. This prompts my question is there some difference between the other adjectives and transparent - or opaque - that I am not aware of?
A company that produces glass with similar capabilities uses those two adjectives, just not after switch to.
I can very well live with my spellchecker being outdone by the construction, my question however is, can I use such a construction?
The ngrams and corpus searches seem not that encouraging. More for the comments, is my construction intelligible?
EDIT: After the positive feedback regarding comprehensibility and provided immersion of the sentence in the comments and chat, I'll keep my sentence and likely only change the verb.
Can anyone speak to the grammaticality of the construction with an adjective after switch to or set to?