"have" + "base form" ?

Question

Hi -I saw this sentence, and could not parse it, could anyone here please help, and with great thanks."We need to be in control of our language, and not have it control us".My problem is with the latter part, where "control" does not agree with "it".Then can "have"+"base form" be? Confusion rose.Kevin

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hi - I saw this sentence, and could not parse it, could anyone here please help, and with great thanks. ... problem is with the latter part, where "control" does not agree with "it". Then can "have"+"base form" be? =A0Confusion rose.[/nq]
In this case "it" means "language". "We need to be in control of our
language, and not have our language control us."
Note the corrected position of the "close quote" mark.

GFH

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I saw this sentence, and could not parse it, could anyone here please help, and with great thanks. "We need ... problem is with the latter part, where "control" does not agree with "it". Then can "have"+"base form" be? Confusion rose.[/nq]
This is an example of a causative construction in English. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causative
Your sentence could be paraphrased as:
"We need to be in control of our language and we should not allow our language to control us".

Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi - I saw this sentence, and could not parse it, could anyone here please help, and with great thanks. ... problem is with the latter part, where "control" does not agree with "it". Then can "have"+"base form" be? Confusion rose.[/nq]
Subjunctive form in use for imperative mode. I suppose that is the "causative" that Opinicus mentioned. I think I learned it as "indirect imperative".
I'll have my people call your people.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Your sentence could be paraphrased as: "We need to be in control of our language and we should not allow our language to control us".[/nq]
Agreed.
So ... can we tell Kevin that they said "it control us" instead of "it controls us" because "control" is not ordinary present tense but is infinitive? This is more obvious if you translate the original into French, IMHO.
Good luck,

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Your sentence could be paraphrased as: "We need to be in control of our language and we should not allow our language to control us".[/nq]
[nq:1]Agreed. So ... can we tell Kevin that they said "it control us" instead of "it controls us" because "control" is not ordinary present tense but is infinitive? This is more obvious if you translate the original into French, IMHO. Good luck,[/nq]
[nq:2]David[/nq]
No. What you quote is a "paraphrase" of the original. It is a way of restating the entire sentence, thereby bypassing the "causative" (imperative/subjunctive). The infinitive statement contains an explicit subject, and avoids the "have it control us". It is a correct statement.
The original "have it control us" is also correct.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]No. What you quote is a "paraphrase" of the original. It is a way of restating the entire sentence, thereby bypassing the "causative" (imperative/subjunctive).[/nq]
Pat,
I was referring to the original quote
[nq:1]We need to be in control of our language, and not have it control us.[/nq]
when I said
[nq:1]they said "it control us" instead of "it controls us" because "control" is not ordinary present tense but is infinitive.[/nq]
In the original quote I can barely see a subjunctive and I can't see an imperative verb at all.
contrast: "If we are not to have it control us,
let us take control of our language!"
Cheers,

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Hi - I saw this sentence, and could not parse ... not agree with "it". Then can "have"+"base form" be? [/nq]
[nq:1]In this case "it" means "language". "We need to be in control of our language, and not have our language control us."[/nq]
What else could "it" refer to other than "our language"? As it is already unambiguous, nothing is gained by repeating "our language".

athel

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]No. What you quote is a "paraphrase" of the original. It is a way of restating the entire sentence, thereby bypassing the "causative" (imperative/subjunctive).[/nq]
[nq:1]Pat, I was referring to the original quote[/nq]
I see that what Opinicus wrote is the paraphrase. Sorry I missed the proper attribution.
[nq:2]We need to be in control of our language, and not have it control us.[/nq]
[nq:1]when I said[/nq]
[nq:2]they said "it control us" instead of "it controls us" because "control" is not ordinary present tense but is infinitive.[/nq]
It, "control", is in the subjunctive, not the infinitive. It has the subject "it".
[nq:1]In the original quote I can barely see a subjunctive and I can't see an imperative verb at all. contrast: "If we are not to have it control us, let us take control of our language!"[/nq]
The subjunctive is in "control" with the subject "it". The verb "have" is the imperative (or causative), that acts on "control". In your restatement you have changed the clause carrying the subjunctive into an if clause and placed it in front of the main clause, setting up a conditional situation. Adding the "are not to have" does not avoid the influence of "have" on "it control us".
In the past I have tried bypassing the subjunctive by adding other words to force an infinitive situation. It works just fine. That is what Opinicus did in both clauses.
(>> "We need to be in control of our language and we should not allow our
[nq:2]language to control us".)[/nq]
But in fact, both "need" and "allow" are causative verbs that, when not using the infinitive use the subjunctive (given the situation)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi - I saw this sentence, and could not parse it, could anyone here please help, and with great thanks. ... problem is with the latter part, where "control" does not agree with "it". Then can "have"+"base form" be? =A0Confusion rose.[/nq]
The real problem here originates in a failure to, as Will Strunk forever and famously used to put it, "match parts". If the sentence read
"We need to control our language, and not have it control us."

or
"We need to be in control of our language, and not have it be in control of us."
I doubt you'd see any problem.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]"We need to be in control of our language, and not have it be in control of us."[/nq]
Or more epigrammatically:
"We need to be in control of our language, not in its control."

¬R

"have" + "base form" ?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions