Question about idioms and verbs

[at.ouchen]

Good day
in Manhattan SC page 251 I Have the following sentence
The building was demolished TO AVOID falling down accidentally.

Explanation :The subject of the main verb was demolished is the noun building, which is also 'the impliedsubject of the infinitive to avoid. However, a building cannot avoid something intentionally.
The sentence above is nonsensical.

but in the idiom section page 153
RIGHT: the book was short enough to read in a night
What makes the first sentence wrong and the second correct??
thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

Hopefully, it's clear that these two sentences can't be meaningfully compared. I.e., if you're even trying to compare these two sentences in the first place, then you're marginalizing, or altogether ignoring, the importance of meaning/context. These are two completely different animals.

* If "to + verb" expresses the purpose of an action, then the subject of the action should also be the one whose intention is "to + verb".
E.g.,
Tom swam a mile three times a week to boost his stamina.
(Who swam a mile three times a week? Tom did. Whose intention was to improve his stamina? Tom's.)

* "To + verb" can also qualify adjectives/descriptions. In this case, the subject of the previous part is the thing being VERBed"”i.e., the object of the verb.
Ok, that rule looks like nonsense in rule form. (I wrote it myself, and it still looks like nonsense.) So, just remember some examples.
This book is hard to read. (Someone is reading the book.)
Some mountains are just too tall to climb. (we're talking about climbing mountains)

Two different things.

[RonPurewal]

Even when the "to+verb" part is the same, the two contexts are still so different that you should have no trouble distinguishing between them.
e.g.,
Chinese characters are hard to read.
Tom takes time every day to read.

In general, you shouldn't be surprised when similar- (or identical-)looking constructions do different things. After all, there are only so many constructions too go around, and written language must be capable of expressing any thought that anyone might ever want to express in words. So, lots of constructions will wear many different hats.

One reason why some constructions are emphasized in the MGMAT materials, to a greater degree than others, is that they have less versatility, and are thus more easily mastered.
E.g., "which" can only do one thing"”and, moreover, that thing is completely different from the function of "which" in spoken English""”so "which" gets a privileged position in our modifiers chapter. And so on.

[at.ouchen]

Thanks Ron, your post is extremely Useful!!!!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.