3.47 [Note a]
“There is a gradience between a semi-auxiliary such as be bound to and an occurance of the copula BE followed by an adjectival or participial construction such as happy to or compelled to. One criterion of importance here is the ability of what follows be to stand at the beginning of a supplementive clause:
Compelled to take stern measures, the administration lost popularity. [1]
? Bound to take stern measures, the administration lost popularity.” [2]
By this criterion, the combination able to and willing to are less clearly independent than their negatives unable to and unwilling to:
Unable/Unwilling to resist, Matilda agreed to betray her county. [3]
?Able/?Willing to resist, Matilda declined to betray her country [4]
Of these parallel sentences, [1] and [3] are clearly acceptable, whereas [2] and [4] are more marginal. But acceptability judgments tend to vary in this are.”
_
Chciałem więc rozwiązać ten dylemat poprzez zapamiętanie, żeby nie uzywać tych konstrukcji z semi-auxiliaries, ale problemem jest rozróżnienie co nimi jest a co uznaje się za “ the copula BE followed by an adjectival or participial construction”:
_
3.47
“The semi-auxiliaries consist of a set of verb idioms which express modal or aspectual meaning and which are introduced by one of the primary verbs HAVE and BE.
[…]
The boundaries of this category are not clear: they might be extended, for example, to include the negative be unable to, be unwilling to, etc.”
_
I co ja biedny mam teraz zrobić? :) Dodawać wszędzie BE jak np (nie jestem pewien czy stworzę teraz poprawne zdania):
Being compelled to take stern measures, the administration lost popularity.
Being bound to take stern measures, the administration lost popularity.
Being unable/unwilling to resist, Matilda agreed to betray her county.
Being able/willing to resist, Matilda declined to betray her country.
Proszę pomóżcie.