Parts of Speech?

Question

Hello,Could somebody give me the parts of speech of the underlined words, and tell me as clearly as possible the reason for their choice ?He will have to get up early to go to school.He will have to work hard to succeed.Thank you in advance.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

will have is a verb phrase; to work is a verb infinitive; hard is an adverb; to succeed is a prepositional phrase

BillJ · Answer

He will have to get up early to go to school:

"will"........ = modal aux verb
"have"...... = verb
"to".......... = subordinating conjunction
"get"........ = verb
"up"......... = preposition
"to".......... = subordinating conjunction
"go"......... = verb
"to".......... = preposition

He will have to work hard to succeed:

"will"......... = modal aux verb
"have........ = verb
"to"........... = subordinating conjunction
"work"....... = verb
"hard"....... = adverb
"to"........... = subordinating conjunction
"succeed".. = verb

BillJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

BillJHe will have to get up early to go to school:"will"........ = modal aux verb"have"...... = verb"to".......... = subordinating conjunction"get"........ = verb

BillJHe will have to work hard to succeed:"will"......... = modal aux verb"have........ = verb"to"........... = subordinating conjunction"work"....... = verb

I have led a sheltered life - I have not seen 'to' referred to as a subordinating conjunction before. How do you define a subordinating conjunction?

Hela · Answer

Good evening, BillJ

Is the modal verb "will" or "have to" ?

Thanks

BillJ · Answer

HelaGood evening, BillJIs the modal verb "will" or "have to" ?

Just "will".

BillJ

Hela · Answer

But isn't "have to" a semi-modal ?
The verb which expresses obligation is "have to" and the verb that expresses future time is "will", doesn't it ?

BillJ · Answer

You must realise that "have to" is not a verb. "Have" is a verb and "to" is a subordinator. They are not a syntactic constituent. The meaningless subordinator "to" introduces the verb phrase that follows it: I have to go to the supermarket.

There are many ways of expressing modality other than by using modal auxiliary verbs, one of which is the lexical use of "have" in "I have to sign the forms". Here, the verb "have" does express obligation, just like the modal "must" does in "I must sign the forms", but that doesn't make it a modal verb, semi or otherwise.

BillJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

BillJYou must realise that "have to" is not a verb. "Have" is a verb

OK, but many writers on grammar find it useful to treat 'have to' as a verb. There is some justification for this, as we shall see.

BillJand "to" is a subordinator.

Huddleston and Pullum (2002) consider it to be a subordinator; others consider it to be an infinitival particle. You called it earlier a subordinating conjunction. Personally, I don't see how it subordinates anything.

BillJThey are not a syntactic constituent. The meaningless subordinator "to" introduces the verb phrase that follows it: I have to go to the supermarket.

I don't think it's that absolute. I see a real difference between the groupings in these two sentences:

The pen I have [/hæv/ = possess] to sign official documents with was my father's.
The pen I have to [/hæft?/= must] sign documents with is the property of the state.

'To' in itself may appear to be meaningless, but it is one of the two parts of 'HAVE to' which, when combined, bring about the sense of obligation. It is thus qualitatively different from the 'to' in 'I want to go', which is indeed meaningless (though obligatory). It may be that 'HAVE to' can be considered as a sytactic constituent.

BillJ Here, the verb "have" does express obligation, just like the modal "must" does in "I must sign the forms",

No, it doesn't. 'To' is essential if HAVE (pronounced /hæf/) is to convey the idea of obligation.

BillJbut that doesn't make it a modal verb, semi or otherwise.

Well, no. In one sense, there are no such things as modals, semi- or otherwise. These words are just labels. However, some writers on grammar have found it useful to consider a small group of 'verbal phrases' as semi- or quasi-modals. 'HAVE to' is clearly not a true modal as modals are normally defined. However, like 'ought (to) and 'am/is/are/was/were to', and perhaps verbal phrases such as ' BE supposed to', it shares semantic similarities with modals that they do not share with catenative verbs followed by a to- infinitive. Indeed, there are times when the past sense of 'must' can be conveyed only by 'had to', While absence of can-ability can be shown by cannot, absence of must-obligation is shown by 'DO not have to.

BillJ · Answer

fivejedjonBillJYou must realise that "have to" is not a verb. "Have" is a verbOK, but many writers on grammar find it useful to treat 'have to' as a verb. There is some justification for this, as we shall see.

"Have to" is just a convenient mnemonic for the "have" + to-infinitival construction expressing obligation - no more than that. Syntactically, there is no justification for treating "have to" as a verb. "Have and "to" belong to different parts of speech, verb and subordinator respectively. The subordinator "to", which marks to-infinitivals, derives historically from the preposition "to" (note the strong similarity between I went to the doctor and I went to see the doctor) but long ago it lost its preposition properties. It is now unique: no other item has exactly the same grammatical properties. Along with H&P I take it as a member of the subordinator category - a special marker for VPs of infinitival clauses. (The Oxford dictionary also describes it as an 'infinitive marker').

fivejedjonBillJand "to" is a subordinator.Huddleston and Pullum (2002) consider it to be a subordinator; others consider it to be an infinitival particle. You called it earlier a subordinating conjunction. Personally, I don't see how it subordinates anything.

This thread is about parts of speech, but 'particle' is just a descriptive term, not a word category. "Down" is a particle in She took down the suitcase, but it belongs in the category preposition. Call "to" a particle if you wish (though I wouldn't), but it still belongs to the subordinator category. "To" can clearly been seen as a subordinator in examples like It provides an opportunity to broaden the mind and He was anxious to make a good impression. "To" can hardly be said to be in construction with the noun "opportunity" and the adjective "anxious". And nor can it be said to be in construction with the verb ("have" or otherwise) that it complements.

Subordinator is another term for subordinating conjunction.

fivejedjonBillJThey are not a syntactic constituent. The meaningless subordinator "to" introduces the verb phrase that follows it: I have to go to the supermarket.I don't think it's that absolute. I see a real difference between the groupings in these two sentences:The pen I have [/hæv/ = possess] to sign official documents with was my father's.The pen I have to [/hæft?/= must] sign documents with is the property of the state.'To' in itself may appear to be meaningless, but it is one of the two parts of 'HAVE to' which, when combined, bring about the sense of obligation. It is thus qualitatively different from the 'to' in 'I want to go', which is indeed meaningless (though obligatory). It may be that 'HAVE to' can be considered as a sytactic constituent.

It's not one of the two parts of "have to". It's the combination of "have + to-infinitival that expresses obligation. The function of the infinitival clause that complements a verb has no bearing on the status of "to".

To-infinitivals have a wide range of functions: It provides an opportunity to broaden the mind (comp of noun), He was anxious to make a good impression (comp of adjective). "To" in those examples clearly does not enter into construction with the noun "opportunity" or the adjective "anxious", so why would we want to say that it enters into construction with the verb "have" in something like I have to sign the forms? H&P's CGEL pp 1185-7 provides a good detailed explanation of all this.

fivejedjonBillJ Here, the verb "have" does express obligation, just like the modal "must" does in "I must sign the forms", No, it doesn't. 'To' is essential if HAVE (pronounced /hæf/) is to convey the idea of obligation.

You're being pedantic. When we talk of "have" expressing obligation, it's taken as read that it has a to-infinitival complement. In I have to go to the doctor, "have" is the principal verb in the matrix clause; it's the head of the clause and thus selects an appropriate dependent, whether it be a to-infinitival complement expressing obligation, or some other kind of expression such as an NP in I have a new car where it's quite OK to refer to this as the possessive "have"

fivejedjonBillJbut that doesn't make it a modal verb, semi or otherwise.Well, no. In one sense, there are no such things as modals, semi- or otherwise. These words are just labels. However, some writers on grammar have found it useful to consider a small group of 'verbal phrases' as semi- or quasi-modals. 'HAVE to' is clearly not a true modal as modals are normally defined. However, like 'ought (to) and 'am/is/are/was/were to', and perhaps verbal phrases such as ' BE supposed to', it shares semantic similarities with modals that they do not share with catenative verbs followed by a to- infinitive. Indeed, there are times when the past sense of 'must' can be conveyed only by 'had to', While absence of can-ability can be shown by cannot, absence of must-obligation is shown by 'DO not have to.

Labelling is standard in descriptive grammar. Those verbs that instance the grammatical representation of the semantic dimension of modality are justifiably called modals, a sub-class of the category auxiliary verb. As I said before, modality can be expressed by a variety of means, including the kind of construction in question.

The "have" in "I have to go to the doctor" is a catenative verb.

BillJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

I have not time to respond in full to your last post. I'll just pick a few points:

BillJ"Have to" is just a convenient mnemonic for the "have" + to-infinitival construction expressing obligation - no more than that.

As I pointed out earlier, HAVE + to+ verb is qualititavely different form, for example, WANT + to + verb.

BillJSyntactically, there is no justification for treating "have to" as a verb. "Have and "to" belong to different parts of speech, verb and subordinator respectively.

Well, I do, and several writers on grammar appear to implicitly accept this. Quirk et al (1985.145-6) have a section on Have to, which they consider to be a semi-auxiliary. As for different parts of speech, Quirk et al say (p 1150), of another class of verbs: "Since the verb has been considered a class of word, it may seem a contradiction to speak of 'multi-word verbs'. The term 'word' is frequently used, however, not only for a morphologically defined word class, but also for an item which acts as a single word lexically or syntactically" [my emphasis added].

BillJThe subordinator "to",[...] It is now unique: no other item has exactly the same grammatical properties. Along with H&P I take it as a member of the subordinator category - a special marker for VPs of infinitival clauses

It is indeed unique. I don't quite understand why it should be thought necessary to include it in a subordinator category, along with that, whether, if. Quirk et al (pps 67-80) speak of " a small number of words of unique function (eg the negative particle not le and the infinitive marker to) which do not fit into any of the [other] classes.

BillJCall "to" a particle if you wish (though I wouldn't), but it still belongs to the subordinator category.

I thought it was unique.

BillJThis thread is about parts of speech, but 'particle' is just a descriptive term, not a word category.

There appear to be some reasons for considering 'particle' a word class.

BillJ "Down" is a particle in She took down the suitcase, but it belongs in the category preposition

Really? Do you claim that it also belongs in the preposition category in She took the suitcase down? Some would claim that it's an adverb in both cases. Such confusion is one reason for considering the preposition/adverb words in multi-word verbs to be in a separate class - particles

BillJThe "have" in "I have to go to the doctor" is a catenative verb.

If one were to class it as a catenative verb, one would have to explain why:
a) it was the only catenative verb to change its meaning when followed by a to- infinitive
b) it was the only catenative verb to change its final consonant when followed by a to- infinitive
c) it was the only catenative verb whose second (past-) tense form functions in place of the second (past-) tense form of a modal (must)

Parts of Speech?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions