0
Bluejay Posted 16 years ago
Grammar

Had to

Because forks weren't available in the restaurant, she had to eat the mashed potatoes with her fingers.

Is "had to eat" a phrasal verb equal to "ate"? Thus, making "mashed potatoes" the direct object, Or, is "had" the main verb, leaving the infinitive phrase (...to eat the mashed potatoes....) as its direct object?

Thank you.

Note: I Googled "had to" as a phrasal verb and could not locate it as being one.
  

Top answer

Hi Bluejay: Here is the dictionary definition of have to / have got to: Be obliged to, must. For example, We have to go now , or He has got to finish the paper today. The use of have as an auxiliary verb to indicate obligation goes back to the 16th century; the variant using got dates from the mid-1800s.

— AlpheccaStars

  • Hi Bluejay: Here is the dictionary definition of have to / have got to: Be obliged to, must.
  • For example, We have to go now , or He has got to finish the paper today.
  • The use of have as an auxiliary verb to indicate obligation goes back to the 16th century; the variant using got dates from the mid-1800s.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
Hi Bluejay:

Here is the dictionary definition of have to / have got to:
Be obliged to, must. For example, We have to go now , or He has got to finish the paper today. The use of have as an auxiliary verb to indicate obligation goes back to the 16th century; the variant using got dates from the mid-1800s.
0
0
BluejayI Googled "had to" as a phrasal verb and could not locate it as being one.
That's not surprising. "have to" is not a phrasal verb. "have to" is an idiom indicating obligations or requirements.

Forks weren't available, so she [had to eat / was required to eat] with her fingers.

CJ
0
0
Because forks weren't available in the restaurant, she had to eat the mashed potatoes with her fingers.

So, what's going on in the above sentence? Is mashed potatoes a direct object of 'had to eat"?

Thanks.
0
0
Yes, Bluejay. Mashed potatoes is the direct object. The subject is she, and the tense is simple past.

Regards,
A-
0
0
One more question.

She had to eat the soup. (Soup would be direct object, right?)

She wanted to visit the doctor. (Doesn't the infinitive phrase function as the direct object? And while shouldn't the infinitive phrase be direct object in first sentence?
0
0
Tricky question, Bluejay:

Idioms never seem to follow the rules. That's why they are called idioms.
Here are some examples with the direct object in italics:

She wants ice cream.
She wants to eat ice cream. - clearly the eating is what she wants!

She has ice cream. = she possesses some ice cream.

She has to eat ice cream. = It's
0
0
AlpheccaStars wrote the following post on 06-30-2010 4:16 PM: Original Thread

javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$ctl00$midc$bcr$PostForm$ctl04$posttabs$ctl19$ctl02$QuoteButton','')

Tricky question, Bluejay:

Idioms never seem to follow the rules. That's why th
0
0
BluejayI was thinking of the following examples before your post:
He had to eat spinach. (spinach DO)
He wants to eat spinach. (to eat spinach DO)
In my opinion these have exactly the same structure.

He wants [ (he) to eat | spinach]
He had [ (he) to eat | spinach]

The object of the main clause is another clause [(he)
0

Related Questions