don't also have to do something

Question

Hi,I just read this in a thread, and I though it would be a good example to ask about some odd things. It was Francesca who wrote it, sorry Cesca for using your sentence, but I really think I need it! #1 - Who did you had...#2 - Who did you have...She said that the second is the right one (obviously), and then she said: "In fact when you have the verb 'do' in the past tense form you don't  have to put also the other verb (to have, in this case) in the past  tense."Two questions:1) Is that "don't have" completely wrong? I know that when "have to" is in negative form (= not have to) it means "don't need to", and implies that something is not necessary. Is that always true or can it also mean "must not" sometimes? In other words, does "not have to" always imply that if something happens there's no problem, it's just that it's not necessary?2) That also is definitely in an odd position. I think I'd know where to put it, the problem is that I don't know if it's ok to use "also", "as well" or "too" in that kind of sentence at all. I asked about this some time ago, and I was told that you don't use them if you want to add a negative statement to a positive one. Well, in Cesca's example there's a negative statement connected to a positive one...  I still think it's ok to use "also", "too" or "as well" when adding a negative to a positive, that's why I picked up that example...Thank you in advance

Francesca · Accepted Answer

Kooyeensorry Cesca for using your sentence, but I really think I need it!

No need to be sorry, that's fine! So we have finally balanced that old copyright issue or better - or rather

BarbaraPA · Answer

This sounds like the debate about what "not required" means.

You don't have to = it is not required. As you say, it does not = you must not.

I think "also" can move about within a sentence. In some places it will look more natural than others but it's not necessarily incorrect. Like "only," it can change the meaning based on where it's placed.

So In fact when you have the verb 'do' in the past tense form you don't have to put also the other verb (to have, in this case) in the past tense."

"In fact, when you have the verb 'do' in the past tense form you must not also put the other verb (to have, in this case) in the past tense."

CalifJim · Answer

Two questions:
1) Is that "don't have" completely wrong? Semantically, yes. It's not a question of not having to have another verb in the past tense; it's a question of being forbidden to have another verb in the past tense. I know that when "have to" is in negative form (= not have to) it means "don't need to", and implies that something is not necessary. Yes. Is that always true Yes. or can it also mean "must not" No, never. sometimes? In other words, does "not have to" always imply that if something happens there's no problem, it's just that it's not necessary? Yes.

2) That also is definitely in an odd position. Yes. It is, generally speaking, incorrect to place an adverb between a verb and its object complement. I think I'd know where to put it, the problem is that I don't know if it's ok to use "also", "as well" or "too" in that kind of sentence at all. It's OK to use also, ... in such sentences -- just not there. I asked about this some time ago, and I was told that you don't use them if you want to add a negative statement to a positive one. Well, in Cesca's example there's a negative statement connected to a positive one... I still think it's ok to use "also", "too" or "as well" when adding a negative to a positive Well, it's OK here -- don't know what that other example is that you're referring to. , that's why I picked up that example...

I would have recast the entire sentence
In fact when you have the verb 'do' in the past tense form you don't have to put also the other verb (to have, in this case) in the past tense.
as
Only the first verb of a verb phrase can be inflected for tense. Once you have the past tense did in the verb phrase, you cannot have another past tense as well.

CJ

Kooyeen · Answer

Thank you very much, I understand.
I don't remember what I asked that time I asked about "too/also/as well", but I think I wrote an example that was not so clear to understand. I'll try to find it... wait...

Found! --->

The examples in that thread are a little different though... it seems that adding "also/too/as well" there is really not necessary, so it sounds better if I don't add anything. But I believe in other sentences it's perfectly ok:

You can have a big cheeseburger but you can't (also) have big fries (too/as well).
You can ask mom if we can go, you don't need to ask dad (too/as well). I'm afraid he wouldn't let us go, so let's just ask mom...

CalifJim · Answer

Hmm. The examples in that other thread had no modal verbs, but the examples you just gave here do. I wonder if that has something to do with it.

CJ

Kooyeen · Answer

CalifJimThe examples in that other thread had no modal verbs, but the examples you just gave here do. I wonder if that has something to do with it.

Uh, probably! That could be an important factor... In some sentences those adverbs seem to be more acceptable than in others, and the presence of modals could make them sound better...
So, yeah, it's a good point! Thanks

don't also have to do something

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions