What would you say the function of "have" is in the phrase, "have yet to find an answer"? We normally think of "yet" as an adverb. It seems to me that if it is an adverb here, then it is modifying the infinitive. Consider the sentence, "We discussed the yet to be announced conference."
However, "yet" cannot be removed from the phrase. We end up with a phrasal modal, if we delete it from the first phrase.
"I have to find an answer = I must find an answer".
Loose the "to" and it becomes a perfect auxiliary.
"I have found an answer".
Infinitive phrases often act as objects of catenative verbs.
"I want to find an answer = I want an explanation." "have" would be functioning as the main verb if "yet to find an answer" is an object or an adverb or even a verb complement.
Note that most people think it's OK to use this construction with a linking verb,
"The decision is yet to be announced."
I think "have yet to" is a phrasal modal. Its function seems similar to other phrasal modals. Consider,
He is going to announce the decision.
He is about to announce the decision.
He was supposed to announce the decision.
He has got to announce the decision.
He has yet to announce the decision.
I have never seen "have yet to" classified as a phrasal modal, but I've yet to find a better explanation.
I have yet to find an answer
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
MrPedantic
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:45 pm
1. The decision is yet/still to be announced.
2. The decision is to be announced on Friday.
3. I am to be made king.
4. I have yet/still to see an explanation.
5. I still have to see an explanation.
6. I have only to see an explanation.
7. *I have to see an explanation [where "have to" <> "must"].
I would take the construction in #1 to #3 as different from the construction in #4 to #6. As #3 shows, it can function without an adverb; whereas the second construction has no meaning without an adverb (see #7).
Best wishes,
MrP
2. The decision is to be announced on Friday.
3. I am to be made king.
4. I have yet/still to see an explanation.
5. I still have to see an explanation.
6. I have only to see an explanation.
7. *I have to see an explanation [where "have to" <> "must"].
I would take the construction in #1 to #3 as different from the construction in #4 to #6. As #3 shows, it can function without an adverb; whereas the second construction has no meaning without an adverb (see #7).
Best wishes,
MrP
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
It seems similar to the "about to" situation. As I said then, to my mind a modal is in its basic function a type of adverb, it is just one of a class that behaves in a certain way. Some things are modalish, and this "have yet to" construction is one. There is no great united holy sytem of parsing, and when parsing we need these ish explanations.
Therefore I have only doodled on my ballot paper.
Therefore I have only doodled on my ballot paper.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Occam's Razor: I'd say it's a little fossil from before "still" and "yet" got themselves sorted out. It's exactly the same as "I still have to find the answer".
Mr P sees a different use of "have to" in 4 and 5 from that in 7 (That 6 is unremarkable because it looks like the "normal" meaning of "have to" to me) but is there? Isn't there some kind of implicit "for me to be happy" or something similar in 4 and 5, making them pretty much a normal "have to" too?
Another, and contradictory, thought, similar to fluffyhamster's, is that "I have not done it yet" is very similar to "I have yet to do it" which makes me wonder if it isn't an archaic perfect of some kind. It can be weak "I've yet to" which supports the idea.
What I can't get my head round is whether it's "I don't have yet to"(less like a perfect auxilary) or "I haven't yet to" (more like a perfect auxiliary) because I can't think of a convincing context for either.
"There are many things about the Moon that we have yet to discover"
"True but there are some things that we haven't yet to discover/don't have yet to discover, because we've already discovered them.
Neither seems to work.
Mr P sees a different use of "have to" in 4 and 5 from that in 7 (That 6 is unremarkable because it looks like the "normal" meaning of "have to" to me) but is there? Isn't there some kind of implicit "for me to be happy" or something similar in 4 and 5, making them pretty much a normal "have to" too?
Another, and contradictory, thought, similar to fluffyhamster's, is that "I have not done it yet" is very similar to "I have yet to do it" which makes me wonder if it isn't an archaic perfect of some kind. It can be weak "I've yet to" which supports the idea.
What I can't get my head round is whether it's "I don't have yet to"(less like a perfect auxilary) or "I haven't yet to" (more like a perfect auxiliary) because I can't think of a convincing context for either.
"There are many things about the Moon that we have yet to discover"
"True but there are some things that we haven't yet to discover/don't have yet to discover, because we've already discovered them.
Neither seems to work.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
This is another post because I'm off on another tack.
I don't get this term "phrasal modal". Googling it, and by the way there are only 100 hits, suggests to me that it is the mother, and father, of misnomers.
The thing about "have to" be going to" "be able to" "be about to" and even perhaps "have yet to" is that they contrast with the modality of their equivalent modals by not being (as) modal. I hate seeing "have to" in a list of modals because the whole point is that it isn't one.
"I'm going to/have to do it tomorrow" presents the information as factual, non-subjective, psychologically uninvolved etc: the very opposite of modal "I'll/must do it tomorrow", which involves the not wholly factual personal authority, decision, judgement or assertion of the speaker.
I'd say there are two "phrasal modals" or "modal phrases". One is "had better", which definitely carries the weight and personal authority of the speaker and what's more is followed by the bare infinitive and "not" in the right place, just like the nine modal auxiliaries. The other is "ought to", which satisfies the structural strictures of the modal auxiliaries apart from that pesky "to". It is, not surprisingly, slightly more factual than "should" (in fact it probably has the same relationship with "should" that "have to" has with "must" but can't get away with being completely unmodal because "should" is so imbued with modality):
When we're in London we ought to go to Harrods
sounds like we "and we are going to".
To put it simply these non/less modal equivalents really shouldn't be called "modal" if that's precisely what they aren't. What they are is "periphrastic modal-substituting phrases" or something like that.
I don't get this term "phrasal modal". Googling it, and by the way there are only 100 hits, suggests to me that it is the mother, and father, of misnomers.
The thing about "have to" be going to" "be able to" "be about to" and even perhaps "have yet to" is that they contrast with the modality of their equivalent modals by not being (as) modal. I hate seeing "have to" in a list of modals because the whole point is that it isn't one.
"I'm going to/have to do it tomorrow" presents the information as factual, non-subjective, psychologically uninvolved etc: the very opposite of modal "I'll/must do it tomorrow", which involves the not wholly factual personal authority, decision, judgement or assertion of the speaker.
I'd say there are two "phrasal modals" or "modal phrases". One is "had better", which definitely carries the weight and personal authority of the speaker and what's more is followed by the bare infinitive and "not" in the right place, just like the nine modal auxiliaries. The other is "ought to", which satisfies the structural strictures of the modal auxiliaries apart from that pesky "to". It is, not surprisingly, slightly more factual than "should" (in fact it probably has the same relationship with "should" that "have to" has with "must" but can't get away with being completely unmodal because "should" is so imbued with modality):
When we're in London we ought to go to Harrods
sounds like we "and we are going to".
To put it simply these non/less modal equivalents really shouldn't be called "modal" if that's precisely what they aren't. What they are is "periphrastic modal-substituting phrases" or something like that.