0
Milky Posted 20 years ago
Linguistics Studies
necessity and not possession
Isn't this expressing necessity and not possession?
The boss had much ill-temper, laziness and tardiness to endure from his co-workers.
The boss had much ill-temper, laziness and tardiness to endure from his co-workers.
Top answer
1. The boss had much ill-temper, laziness and tardiness to endure from his co-workers . Well, it sounds like possession to me.
- 1.
- The boss had much ill-temper, laziness and tardiness to endure from his co-workers .
- Well, it sounds like possession to me.
- The underlined portion is the object of "had"; the infinitive clause post-modifies "ill-temper", etc.
- Cf.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
45 Answers
0
1. The boss had much ill-temper, laziness and tardiness to endure from his co-workers.
Well, it sounds like possession to me. The underlined portion is the object of "had"; the infinitive clause post-modifies "ill-temper", etc.
Cf.
2. I had too much to eat last night.
3. You don't have much to say for yourself.
MrP
Well, it sounds like possession to me. The underlined portion is the object of "had"; the infinitive clause post-modifies "ill-temper", etc.
Cf.
2. I had too much to eat last night.
3. You don't have much to say for yourself.
MrP
00
<Well, it sounds like possession to me. The underlined portion is the object of "had"; the infinitive clause post-modifies "ill-temper", etc>
And away from syntax? Speak semantically, Mr P.
[<:o)]
And away from syntax? Speak semantically, Mr P.
[<:o)]
00
2. I had too much to eat last night. = ate too much (have/eat a meal)
3. You don't have much to say for yourself. Yes, there I see it as possession. (have + little quantity = possess little)
3. You don't have much to say for yourself. Yes, there I see it as possession. (have + little quantity = possess little)
00
Milky<Well, it sounds like possession to me. The underlined portion is the object of "had"; the infinitive clause post-modifies "ill-temper", etc>It sounds like possession, semantically; and it looks like possession, syntactically.
And away from syntax? Speak semantically, Mr P.
[<:o)]
MrP
00
I guess we disagree on the meaning of "had" there. Interesting how we don't see eye-to-eye on many areas of usage.
00
Of course, I mean "possession" in its loosest, most figurative sense.
Cf.
1. I have a lot to carry.
2. I have a lot to put up with.
MrP
Cf.
1. I have a lot to carry.
2. I have a lot to put up with.
MrP
00
MrPedanticOf course, I mean "possession" in its loosest, most figurative sense.Well thank goodness for that. I see the expression of necessity as being much stronger than the expression of possession.
Cf.
1. I have a lot to carry.
2. I have a lot to put up with.
MrP
00
I have no end of calls to make expresses the same as I have to make no end of calls. Do you agree?
And...
I have my correspondence to attend to, and I have to attend to my correspondence. No appreciable difference between them, right?
But here, there is:
I have much money to spend and I have to spend much money.
And...
I have my correspondence to attend to, and I have to attend to my correspondence. No appreciable difference between them, right?
But here, there is:
I have much money to spend and I have to spend much money.
00
When you teach the form X has/have + obj + to + V, what do you tell the students regarding possession and necessity?
00
"No end" imports some user comment. So to simplify:
1. I have some calls to make.
2. I have to make some calls.
For me, #1 describes; #2 describes but adds the speaker's sense of must-be-done-ness.
MrP
1. I have some calls to make.
2. I have to make some calls.
For me, #1 describes; #2 describes but adds the speaker's sense of must-be-done-ness.
MrP
0
Related Questions