Help

Question

I suppose this way of saying is correct: 1) We have not to [verb] [objec]. But is this one correct, and why? 2) We have to not only [verb] [object] If yes, why the "only" interchanges the places of to
ot? Thanks

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

We don't have to lock the door. (It is not necessary to lock the door.)
We must not lock the door. (We are obliged not to lock the door. We have to keep the door unlocked.)

Not only do we have to lock the door, but we have to lock the windows as well.
Not only must we lock the door, but we must lock the windows as well.

Not only do we not have to lock the door, but we don't have to lock the windows either.

"We have not to ... " is not an option, nor is "We have to not only ... ".

CJ

Eagle2l84 · Answer

"We have not to ... " is not an option, nor is "We have to not only ... ".

I'd agree with the first, but I think your wrong with the second. Google for "have to not only" brings 19.400 results, here a few examples:

You have to not only have the business ideas, but be able to execute them.

Dacycyzn didn’t have to do this. She was already living in rural Maine. The rest of us have to not only work at saving (and not spending), but shifting into a way of life that supports those measures.

So, to make a meaning out of what we see, we have to not only identify the sign but also the genre, referring to the context of the programme, identifying its codes.

Movements must be clear about goals and strategy to retain a sense of purpose, confidence, identity, and integrity in the face of critique. They have to be structured and function in ways that not only enlarge but retain membership, and that not only contribute to change but do so clearly in all members’ eyes. They have to not only attack problems, but to meet needs for members and populations more broadly, and they have to win victories that meet needs but also create the conditions for still more victories to follow.

I think the last example shows, that you have to see two things coming together here:

1. "have to" as an alternative to write "must".

2. And "not only ... but (also)" being a correlative conjunction as is "either ... or".

cu

CalifJim · Answer

If one insists on using such a construction, the much better form is "have not only to ... but also to ...", not "have to not only ...".

The parallelism is broken with "They have to not only attack problems, but to meet needs ...".
It is preserved with "They have not only to attack problems, but (also) to meet needs ...".

The alternative way to preserve the parallelism leads to a rather infelicitous structure:
"They have to not only attack problems, to but (also) meet needs ...".

It appears to me that at least 19,400 writers have no feel for good English writing!

One possible reason why they write like this is that they believe the expression "have to" (of obligation) cannot be split by any intervening words. This is not true, especially in more formal writing.
Incidentally, the slightly less formal "Not only do they have to attack problems, but they also have to meet needs" allows the "have to"'s to remain unbroken by other words.

CJ

Eagle2l84 · Answer

Thanks for your comment CJ,

so thinking of a possible dialog in a thriller, I understand from your explanation, that:

1a. We have to either kill him or destroy the evidence.
1b. We have to not only kill him but also destroy the evidence.

would better be said as

2a I. We either have to kill him or have to destroy the evidence.
2a II. We have either to kill him or to destroy the evidence.
2b I. We not only have to kill him but also have to destroy the evidence.
2b II. We have not only to kill him but also to destroy the evidence.

Though English is a foreign language to me, #2 sounds odd to me, I would still prefer #1 in both cases. However, using #2 I would prefer 2a II to 2a I but 2b I to 2b II. What do you think? Which versions are best used? Or would you generally use version #3 below, which sounds OK to me?

3a. Either we have to kill him or we have to destroy the evidence.
3b. Not only we have to kill him but also we have to destroy the evidence.

cu

CalifJim · Answer

I'm wondering about the significance of your mentioning a thriller. In certain kinds of writing, authors dispense with some of the stylistic principles of more elegant registers. I'm wondering if you wanted comments on register.

I'm going to assume that's not what you were hinting at.

I'd say or write:

Either we have to kill him or we have to destroy the evidence. (3a)
Not only do we have to kill him, but we (also) have to destroy the evidence (,too). (almost 3b)

(Using "also" or "too" or neither, but not both.)

In the group of "2's" I prefer "have to" together. 2aI, 2bI. 2aII and 2bII are odd for being in a higher register which I sometimes call "choice English"! Others will almost certainly have different opinions, as there is plenty of room for honest disagreements on stylistic matters such as these.

CJ

Eagle2l84 · Answer

Thanks CJ,

I mentioned the thriller only because killing somebody or destroying evidence are not normal-life actions, but fit perfectly in the context of a thriller.

While your answer is nearly what I have expected, it leads me to another new question. You added "do" into 3b and I must admit it sounds better with than without, but I see no reason why this is so. Is there any rule behind this? Or is it also only a matter of style? (I can live without an answer if you want to stop it here, but it would be very nice, though.)

cu

CalifJim · Answer

Yes, there's a rule: Do-support (if necessary) and subject-auxiliary inversion after negatives. (where modals are treated as auxiliaries)

1. I have never gone to class unprepared. (correct)

Fronting the negative: Never I have gone to class unprepared. (incorrect)
Following the rule: Never have I gone to class unprepared. (correct)

2. I must not only study, but I must also pass the test.

Fronting "not only": Not only I must study, but I must also pass the test.
Following the rule: Not only must I study, but I must also pass the test.

3. You should not wake me under any condition.
Rephrased as: You should wake me under no condition. (for purposes of fronting the "no")

Fronting: Under no condition you should wake me.
Following the rule: Under no condition should you wake me.

None of the examples above required do-support; the next one does, because there is no auxiliary nor modal to invert. The auxiliary "do" must be added so that there is an auxiliary to invert with the subject.

4. I never remember where I put my umbrella.

Fronting: Never I remember where I put my umbrella. (incorrect)
No modal nor auxiliary. Do-support: Never I do remember where I put my umbrella. (incorrect)
Following the rule (inverting): Never do I remember where I put my umbrella.

Hope that helps.
CJ

Help

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions