0
Cup cake Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
have to have...
Hi Everyone,
I got into a bit of a bit of pickle the other night with the following sentence:
' How many lattes would Sam have to sell to have sold more than Cathy did last week?'
One of my students wanted to know why we say - have to sell to have sold.
I think this is to do with a conditional?
How could I best explain why we can say this phrase?
Many thanks
Cup Cake
I got into a bit of a bit of pickle the other night with the following sentence:
' How many lattes would Sam have to sell to have sold more than Cathy did last week?'
One of my students wanted to know why we say - have to sell to have sold.
I think this is to do with a conditional?
How could I best explain why we can say this phrase?
Many thanks
Cup Cake
Top answer
" In the first part, "have to" is the "have to" of requirement/obligation. "would" is expressing an imagined or hypothetical situation. " is a valid question by itself.
- " In the first part, "have to" is the "have to" of requirement/obligation.
- "would" is expressing an imagined or hypothetical situation.
- " is a valid question by itself.
- In the second part, "to have sold" is looking back from the imagined point at which the sales target is reached.
- That is why the perfect infinitive "to have sold" is chosen.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
There are two parts to this:
"How many lattes would Sam have to sell / (in order) to have sold more than ..."
In the first part, "have to" is the "have to" of requirement/obligation. "would" is expressing an imagined or hypothetical situation. "How many lattes would Sam have to sell?" is a valid question by itself.
In the second part, "to have sold" is looking back from
"How many lattes would Sam have to sell / (in order) to have sold more than ..."
In the first part, "have to" is the "have to" of requirement/obligation. "would" is expressing an imagined or hypothetical situation. "How many lattes would Sam have to sell?" is a valid question by itself.
In the second part, "to have sold" is looking back from
00
Many thanks GPY! Great explanation.
I can see that your second choice is also correct - 'have to sell to sell'. Wouldn't we need a comma in-between 'sell, to sell' though?
I forgot about the perfect infinitive. I hope my student will get this next week. I told the class that I'd let them know next week. I did explain it then and there, but told them I'd check to make sure I give
I can see that your second choice is also correct - 'have to sell to sell'. Wouldn't we need a comma in-between 'sell, to sell' though?
I forgot about the perfect infinitive. I hope my student will get this next week. I told the class that I'd let them know next week. I did explain it then and there, but told them I'd check to make sure I give
00
Cup cakeI can see that your second choice is also correct - 'have to sell to sell'. Wouldn't we need a comma in-between 'sell, to sell' though?There is no proper grammatical justification for a comma. To me, a comma would look like a kind of fudged attempt to deal with the awkwardness of the repetition.
00
Ok. I guess it also rides on natural space intonation within the sentence. I would naturally take a breathe in the same way you've bolded the second to sell...
I think a native speaker has the rhythm of the sentence, whereas a non native would find this difficult perhaps?
Thanks GPY.
I think a native speaker has the rhythm of the sentence, whereas a non native would find this difficult perhaps?
Thanks GPY.
00
Cup cakeOk. I guess it also rides on natural space intonation within the sentence. I would naturally take a breathe in the same way you've bolded the second to sell...I think a native speaker has the rhythm of the sentence, whereas a non native would find this difficult perhaps?It is not unnatural to make a small pause there in speech. However, for me this do
0
Related Questions