To be possible/impossible can be followed by an infinitive verb only when the subject of the finite verb is the introductory "it". With any other subject the infinitive would be wrong, so I've learnt.
For instance, it is correct to say
- "It is impossible to grow oranges here." or "It was impossible to hear the lecturer."
but not
- "Oranges are impossible to grow here." or "The lecturer was impossible to be heard."
However, I've read (in newspapers) or heard (from native speakers) sentences that do not follow the rule, as for example:
"A result not possible to foresee."
"A question impossible to answer."
"A situation possible to arise."
Are these examples grammatical? Should they be, then either the rule has exceptions or there is no such rule. Should they be wrong, then are the three last sentences colloquialisms, or are they really wrong?
Best Answer
The Original Poster was given the following rule:
However, these examples which are wrong according to the rule, are in fact perfectly grammatical:
So this clearly shows the rule is wrong.
However! Hang on one second! Part of the rule seems to be correct. The Original Poster's examples all used impossible and not possible. The following are indeed ungrammatical, or at least a bit wonky:
Now this is properly, bona fide crazy. Who designed this language? Shame on them whoever they are. We have one rule for possible and a different one for impossible. It is, of course, completely natural, and indeed commonsensical, and intelligent, to extrapolate that if there's a rule for possible, that impossible will work the same way. But it doesn't.
There are a couple of other unusual and interesting things hidden in the OP's post. First their example:
This is clearly wrong in the passive like this, but it's difficult to see why. The active version above is, of course fine. Secondly, it's not immediately clear why the first example here is wrong - although it is:
Here we see that both possible and impossible seem to be problematic. On the other hand likely seem to be entirely acceptable.
Now if you want to know why possible and impossible behave so differently, the answer is: I don't know. I can however explain how they behave, which will get us half-way there.
Infinitives as clauses
We might think of infinitives as kind of free-standing verbs. Most of the time when we see them, they have no subject, and they often have no visible object either:
However, these verbs always have some kind of unexpressed subject. The example above means:
Note that if the subject of the infinitive is different from the subject of want, it must be overtly expressed:
The fact that we can omit subject of the infinitive here is a property of the verb want. If the subject position of the infinitive is not expressed, the subject of want controls its interpretation:
So the subject of to be rolled in marmalade here is controlled here by the hephalumps, the subject of want. The hephalumps want the hephalumps to be rolled in marmalade. Because it behaves in this way want is known as a control verb.
Adjectives 1: Control
Adjectives work this way too. Adjectives often occur as complements of verbs. These adjectives often take infinitive clauses as their own complements. These clauses may also have positions that are controlled. Take the adjective keen:
Here the adjective keen is the complement of the verb BE. In turn keen is taking an infinitival clause as complement. When the subject of the infinitive isn't expressed, it's identity is controlled by the subject of the verb - in the case the hephalumps. The second example above means:
Again this is a property of the adjective keen. Some other adjectives that have this pattern are anxious, delighted and eager. However, neither possible nor impossible pattern this way. For this reason the following are unacceptable and the grammar prevents accidents from being the subject of happen:
Adjectives 2: Hollow clauses
With the adjective difficult, the subject of the infinitive is freely interpretable. We can extrapolate who was trying to read the book from the surrounding discourse. The subject of to read is not being stipulated by the subject of the main verb, the book. The book was not reading the book!
However, if you look carefully at the other side of read you'll realise that the book is being interpreted as the Object of read. The sentence means something like:
In some grammars they stipulate that the object has been moved from that gap at the end there to the subject position of the main verb. Tough is one of the adjectives that behaves in this way, and for this reason this is often called tough-movement. In the CaGEL these clauses are known as hollow clauses, because they have that gap at the end.
One of the adjectives that takes hollow clauses is impossible. For this reason the OP's examples were correct:
These work like this:
Possible
Possible does not occur in control constructions. It's also said that possible doesn't take hollow clauses. It cannot control the interpretation of the subject in an infinitival clause, and does not allow for the gap at the end of a hollow clause to be interpreted through a subject higher up in the sentence structure.
The reason the example above fails is that the speaker wants to use possible in a control construction meaning something like this:
Unfortunately, this won't work. Similarly the problem with:
..is that again, the speaker here is trying to use impossible like a control adjective, whereas as we have have seen, it actually takes hollow clauses. They expect the sentence to be heard like this:
Because the adjective is impossible, the item lecturer here cannot be interpreted as the subject of to be heard. In fact lecturer cannot be processed properly as an actor in the infinitival clause at all, because there is no object position in the clause - it's passive!