0
Whl626 Posted 22 years ago
Grammar
I have to go now.
This problem has been lingering in my mind for years. How to analyse it ?
have = verb ? ( if have is verb, then ' to go ' is noun phrase and ' now ' is adverb ) ? If this is the case, then ' now' as an adverb can't modify a ' noun phrase ' but modify the have
. That analysis is a little awkward then
What do you think ?
have to = auxiliary and go is the verb ?
have = verb ? ( if have is verb, then ' to go ' is noun phrase and ' now ' is adverb ) ? If this is the case, then ' now' as an adverb can't modify a ' noun phrase ' but modify the have
. That analysis is a little awkward then What do you think ?have to = auxiliary and go is the verb ?
Top answer
Just change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze: "go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to! I have to go: "have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive. "Have to" here is a fixed expression, and therefore "to" is actually part of the following infinitive form of the full verb, not a preposition.
- Just change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze: "go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to!
- I have to go: "have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive.
- "Have to" here is a fixed expression, and therefore "to" is actually part of the following infinitive form of the full verb, not a preposition.
- If it was a preposition, usually a Gerund would have to follow (as eg.
- in "I look forward to seeing you).
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Just change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze:
"go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to!
I have to go:
"have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive.
"Have to" here is a fixed expression, and therefore "to" is actually part of the following
"go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to!
I have to go:
"have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive.
"Have to" here is a fixed expression, and therefore "to" is actually part of the following
00
It's a matter of doing things in the right order.
The noun phrase in "I have to go now" is "to go now", not merely "to go".
Basically, "now" is an adverb, which modifies the verb "to go", and THEN, after having been so modified, the whole lot gets converted to single a noun phrase.
Rommie
The noun phrase in "I have to go now" is "to go now", not merely "to go".
Basically, "now" is an adverb, which modifies the verb "to go", and THEN, after having been so modified, the whole lot gets converted to single a noun phrase.
Rommie
00
Just because ' have ' and ' to ' are always stuck together. So to say that ' have ' is the verb and ' to go now ' is the ' noun phrase ' means we break up the ' have ' and ' to ' for analysis. ?
From Pem's point of view, if ' go ' is the verb, then ' have to ' is an auxilliary verb but it is not mentioned as such in any grammar book. That's why it baffles me
From Pem's point of view, if ' go ' is the verb, then ' have to ' is an auxilliary verb but it is not mentioned as such in any grammar book. That's why it baffles me
00
>> From Pem's point of view, if ' go ' is the verb, then ' have to ' is an auxilliary verb but it is not mentioned as such in any grammar book. That's why it baffles me
0
Related Questions