"have + object + to + verb"

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:04 am

Interesting that, in modern use, "have + object + to + verb" can express obligation, when it normally expresses possession:

She has a train to catch.

He has a child to feed.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:41 am

9. Have followed by:

1. the object and bare infinitive is used to get something done. Have the waiter bring some more wine.
2. the object+to+infinitive implies either:
1. possession of that object, or that I have a car to travel to work.
2. have is delexical Have a bath to get clean.
3. to show strong external obligation. I have a train to catch.

Strong obligation or a similar idea is indicated where the object doesn't exist.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:17 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote: 2. have is delexical Have a bath to get clean.
3. to show strong external obligation. I have a train to catch.

Strong obligation or a similar idea is indicated where the object doesn't exist.

Is there no object in "I have a train to catch"?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:36 pm

metal56 wrote:
Andrew Patterson wrote: 2. have is delexical Have a bath to get clean.
3. to show strong external obligation. I have a train to catch.

Strong obligation or a similar idea is indicated where the object doesn't exist.
Is there no object in "I have a train to catch"?

Yes, the train is the object.

I was not talking about cases 1,2 or 3 there, but to the general and seperate case when "have to" doesn't have an object, which is what we have been discussing in the thread "modal agony". Sorry if I didn't make that clear.