I was wondering if I could use this construction:

The President is to have visited Italy by today

I know that if I typed The President was to have + p.part. it would mean he should have but He didn't

Eventually, May I use this kinda constructions passively? He is to have been visited...by today.

  • 1
    Your particular example looks a bit weird, but I can't argue with The right thing for John to have done is to have arrived by now. Whatever - obviously such constructions are grammatical. It's just that there aren't many contexts where they make sense (most native speakers would probably say The President was to have visited Italy by today in any conceivable real-world context). – FumbleFingers Apr 6 '17 at 12:17
  • Yeah, Indeed, according to what I know, they're used in formal writings and so on. Thank you for your helping. I wouldn't use them while talking too. Too weird, too long and too much time required thinking of it to say it correctly. – Francis Rick Onorato Apr 6 '17 at 12:31
  • 1
    There's discussion of the construction here, wherein I see the equally uncontestable (if somewhat ungainly) example Sean Connery is coming here at 10 tomorrow. By the time he arrives, I'm to have been here for 2 hours, just to make sure that no fans can get in and lie in wait for him. – FumbleFingers Apr 6 '17 at 14:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.