Page 1 of 1
"have + object + to + verb"
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:04 am
by metal56
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.
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:41 am
by Andrew Patterson
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.
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:17 pm
by metal56
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"?
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:36 pm
by Andrew Patterson
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.