I don't have very much in the way of free time.

Question

I don't have very much in the way of free time.I found the above sentence in my book. I suppose this means 'I don't have free time that much.' What's the object in the sentence? I don't have WHAT?I suppose very much in the way of works adverbially, so free time could be the object.ThanksLiJ

Flintonian · Accepted Answer

Your guess is right.
There is no other noun in the sentence to be the object of the verb other than "free time".
"way" cannot be the object, though.

Thanks

Cool Breeze · Answer

Hi LiJ

In English, the object is placed as close to the verb (have) as possible. In your sentence the grammatical object is the pronoun much and many grammarians would say that very, which modifies much, is a part of the object as well. Free time, which is behind two prepositions (in and of) cannot possibly be the object. In the way of free time is an idiomatic way to say what you don't have very much of.

CB

Liveinjapan · Answer

Thanks, Flintonian, CB.

I understand what CB says.

I'm sure my understanding is right, but if you have time, please let me comfirm:

I don't have very much in the way of free time.
I don't have very much of free time.

The structure of the above sentences are the same, so the object of each sentece is 'much', right?

Thanks
LiJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

LiveinjapanI don't have very much in the way of free time.
I don't have very much of free time.

The structures of the above sentences are the same, so the object of each sentece is 'much', right?

The structures are the same up to the word much. After that, the second sentence jars in my ears. Much + of free time is not good. Simplify it a little: I don't have very much free time.That's all you need.

Now the object istime and everything that is between have and time can be considered to be a part of the object because these words modify time. So we could also say that the object is very much free time. Some might say that the object is free time and not include very much.

I don't really see the point of trying to put a label on everything as there will never be universal agreement on grammatical terminology. It varies from country to country and even from person to person. I have read a grammar book in which relative clauses weren't called relative clauses at all. Fortunately I have long since forgotten what they were called.

I take it as a sign of a philological novice to adamantly stick to regarding a term as the only acceptable one. It could also be called narrow-mindedness.

Putting grammatical labels on words is particularly difficult in English, a language that defies order and can be incomprehensible to native speakers unless enough context is given. Even with enough context it can be ambiguous and open to interpretations. What is natural and clear to some may be unnatural to others. So, LiJ, if you don't like my suggestion, by all means, use your own! Many others have done that before you.

I try to avoid grammatical terminology but of course I realise that analysing language is impossible without it. Nevertheless, for many people it would be far more useful to just learn English words and expressions instead of trying to find order where it may not exist.

Cheers
CB

Liveinjapan · Answer

Cool Breeze
Liveinjapan
I don't have very much in the way of free time.
I don't have very much of free time.

The structures of the above sentences are the same, so the object of each sentece is 'much', right?

The structures are the same up to the word much. After that, the second sentence jars in my ears. Much + of free time is not good. Simplify it a little: I don't have very much free time. That's all you need. Now the object istime and everything that is between have and time can be considered to be a part of the object because these words modify time. So we could also say that the object is very much free time. Some might say that the object is free time and not include very much.

I don't really see the point of trying to put a label on everything as there will never be universal agreement on grammatical terminology. It varies from country to country and even from person to person. I have read a grammar book in which relative clauses weren't called relative clauses at all. Fortunately I have long since forgotten what they were called. I take it as a sign of a philological novice to adamantly stick to regarding a term as the only acceptable one. It could also be called narrow-mindedness.

Putting grammatical labels on words is particularly difficult in English, a language that defies order and can be incomprehensible to native speakers unless enough context is given. Even with enough context it can be ambiguous and open to interpretations. What is natural and clear to some may be unnatural to others. So, LiJ, if you don't like my suggestion, by all means, use your own! Many others have done that before you.

I try to avoid grammatical terminology but of course I realise that analysing language is impossible without it. Nevertheless, for many people it would be far more useful to just learn English words and expressions instead of trying to find order where it may not exist.

Cheers
CB

Thank you very much, CB.
I've read your comments carefully and completely agree with you.

Your tips definitely encourage me to study English further.

Best wishes, LiJ

CalifJim · Answer

I don't really see the point of ...
..........
... where it may not exist.

Lovely.

CJ

Marius Hancu · Answer

Alternative:

I don't have very much in terms of free time.

Liveinjapan · Answer

Marius HancuAlternative:

I don't have very much in terms of free time.

That's understandable! Thanks, guys.

I don't have very much in the way of free time.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions