necessity and not possession

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:12 pm

Obligative.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:44 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:Obligative.

Even this one with stressed "has"?

"That is the only reason he has to go."

I'd say that's possessive.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:27 am

I have to write a letter.

I have a letter to write.

Both obligation, and really the same meaning.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:21 am

Stephen Jones wrote:
I have to write a letter.

I have a letter to write.
Both obligation, and really the same meaning.

I agree. But it isn't always the case:

I have clothes to wear.

I have to wear clothes.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:11 pm

Is have + [sth] + to + verb really that special? There's plenty of other verbs that could substitute for have. Remember Jefferson Airplane:

Don't you want somebody to love
Don't you need somebody to love
Wouldn't you love somebody to love
You better find somebody to love.

Presumably you might finally have somebody to love if you're lucky.

I might want a cat to look after, then I get it I can quite reasonably say "I have a cat to look after". Posession or obligation?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:45 pm

lolwhites wrote:Is have + [sth] + to + verb really that special? There's plenty of other verbs that could substitute for have. Remember Jefferson Airplane:

Don't you want somebody to love
Don't you need somebody to love
Wouldn't you love somebody to love
You better find somebody to love.

Presumably you might finally have somebody to love if you're lucky.

I might want a cat to look after, then I get it I can quite reasonably say "I have a cat to look after". Posession or obligation?

Of course not, and we are discussing other verbs that are followed by this pattern in the thread "suppletive supplicative modality."

I don't think we should be surprised that deontic ideas are found in verbs followed by the object+to+infinitive because an agent is needed to do anything that one does not do oneself. To+infinitive often implies a strong purpose. If youve got a strong purpose and someone to carry out that purpose of course it will be deontic.

What is special about "have" is that it starts by having a meaning of possession and moves to a deontic meaning. Thanks to these discussions, we can see a probable mechanism for how that process came about.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:03 pm

lolwhites wrote:
I might want a cat to look after, then I get it I can quite reasonably say "I have a cat to look after". Posession or obligation?

Could be either, depending on the context, but discussing "have + obj + to + V" is important to those who are frustrated (many students among them) by certain ESL teachers attempts to call everything possession.

It's more complicated that just lumping everything into the possession barrel. Same with teacher's who discuss the clitic 's as "the possessive 's" and then go on to say that it can only be used with inanimate nouns.

More than the literal meaning of possesion is at work here. Necessity, obligation and relationship are also involved.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:14 pm

Metal wrote:

It's more complicated that just lumping everything into the possession barrel. Same with teacher's who discuss the clitic 's as "the possessive 's" and then go on to say that it can only be used with inanimate nouns.

"Peter's car," "Peter's wife," Peter isn't inanimate though his car is; his wife isnt.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:28 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:
"Peter's car," "Peter's wife," Peter isn't inanimate though his car is; his wife isnt.

The dog's bollocks.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:42 pm

metal56 wrote:
Andrew Patterson wrote:
"Peter's car," "Peter's wife," Peter isn't inanimate though his car is; his wife isnt.
The dog's bollocks.

Neither are they. How did you write that without getting censored? I can't even write the word referring to people born within the sound of Beau bells.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:15 pm

*beep*-the-north
pussywillow
bluetit
an erect fellow
asses are all over Greece

FYI,

*beep* of the North.

The Duke of Gordon. So called on a monument erected to his honour at Fochabers, in Aberdeenshire. (Died 1836.)
[/quote]

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:59 pm

clitic 's as "the possessive 's" and then go on to say that it can only be used with inanimate nouns.

What governs the use of 's as a gentive is that its use is determined by the gender scale of the possessor not the possessed. That is to say it can only be used with higher animals or above as possessors with certain limited exceptions.

We can say
John's dog
Fido's bone
The horse's mouth
Fido's master
The book's owner
The poet's epic
The epic's author
France's wine
But not
*The door's handle
*The house's window
*The tree's leaves

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:22 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:

What governs the use of 's as a gentive is that its use is determined by the gender scale of the possessor not the possessed. That is to say it can only be used with higher animals or above as possessors with certain limited exceptions.

[/i][/quote]

Where do these fit on that scale?

-is visually broken in two, less tube-like, the gangway's position changing half way through

-Tricon strongly advises the Cassons to realign the hotel's position in the marketplace

-

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:29 am

Where do these fit on that scale?

Here

with certain limited exceptions.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:08 am

Stephen Jones wrote:
Where do these fit on that scale?
Here
with certain limited exceptions.

And what governs those that are acceptable exceptions and those which are not?