Structual analysis

Question

The sentences:

We hear of the scientific methods of some prize-fighter, and a book has been published on the Science of the Sacraments. There is nothing in the laws of any country which forbids its citizens from giving to the words of their language such significance as the may choose, but science and scientific as employed in these connections have no relation to the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal.

About we have here to deal. , is it

have to=must => we must deal ?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

= "the knowledge that we have to deal with here" Yes. Must.

On the other hand, because of the intervening "here", which prevents the unit "have to", we might say
= "the knowledge that we have before us (waiting) to be dealt with"

This is a good illustration of how the idea of existence evolved into that of duty in English.

Taka · Answer

On the other hand, because of the intervening "here", which prevents the unit "have to", we might say
= "the knowledge that we have before us (waiting) to be dealt with"

Yes. What puzzles me is the intervening "here". If you say "things which we have here to do", does it mean "things which we must do here"? I guess not. I think it's like "we have things to do here"

As for "the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal" (by the way, Jim, IMO, "which" refers not just to "the knowledge" but to "the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge"), if it were:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge which we have here to deal with"

I would interpret it as:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge.+ we have it here to deal with".

But it's :

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal".

So is it possible to change:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge.+ we have it here to deal with "

into:

"the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal"?

If it had a "prepositon+noun" construction, I think it is possible to make it "preposition+which". But in "we have it here to deal with ", the preposition "with" and the noun"it=the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge" are distant from each other. Still is it possible to make it "preposition+which"?

Another question. Is it possible to say "we have here to do it" to mean "we have to do it here"?

(p.s. Could you please paraphrase your message, "This is a good illustration of how the idea of existence evolved into that of duty in English"? I don't know if I understand you correctly)

CalifJim · Answer

Re: "This is a good illustration of how the idea of existence evolved into that of duty in English".

After thinking about it further, I don't believe it's what I really wanted to say.

I was thinking about the subtle differences between pairs like the following.

I have letters to write.
I have to write letters.

I have five children to feed and clothe.
I have to feed and clothe five children.

The first of each pair has an intervening word between "have" and the infinitival "to". This attenuates the sense of obligation. The first seems to focus on the presence of the letters or children - the mere fact of their existence. Or, if you will, the focus is on the task involving the letters (or children) awaits the subject ("I").

In contrast, the second of each pair has a true "have to", i.e., "must".
_______

"we have here to do it" cannot, in my opinion, mean "we have to do it here".

CalifJim · Answer

The underlying structure is (where "it" refers to " ... knowledge"):

"... knowledge" + "we have it here [it is present] -- (in order) to deal with it".

or:
"... knowledge" + "we have to [must] deal with it here".

My preference is for the first analysis.

(See my other post. I placed the two possibilities in the same order in this post.)

By the way, the syntactic inversions of this text are no longer in fashion. It sounds more like a nineteenth-century text.

Taka · Answer

OK. I understand what you mean completely. Thanks!

Now, the last question to ask. Something about grammar.

(Example)

She is the woman. about her .=>She is the woman about whom I told you.

Here, the prepositon "about" and the noun "her" are next to each other. And I thought such propinquity was required for the "prep+which/whom" construction.

However, if the original sentence I posted is:

the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge.+ we have it here to deal with

the preposition "with" and the noun "it" are not; they are distant from each other. Regardless of such separation, is it still possible to make it:

the great progressive acquisition of the knowledge with which we have here to deal ?

Is such "[noun (intervening words) prep]=>[prep which/whom (intervening wods)]" usual?

CalifJim · Answer

I would say that the it that becomes which is in a different place.

Again, where "it" refers to "the great progressive ... knowledge", the last clause is

we have (here) to deal with it

So the final "with it" becomes the initial "with which" of the form we see in your original post.

we have here to deal with it
with which we have here to deal

Taka · Answer

quote: we have (here) to deal with it

Then what is "here" grammatically?? A noun, the object of "have"?

If it's an adverb, the main structure of it is going to be "we have to deal with it+here (intervining adj)". But according to the messages you made, "we have here to deal with it" cannot mean "we have to deal with it here", right?

CalifJim · Answer

The whole thing is a big puzzle, isn't it? It makes my brain ache!

I was thinking in terms of modern English and the verb "do" when I made that comment.
I was thinking that nobody actually says "We have here to do it".

I can't speak for what was acceptable English more than a century ago, but if we take into account the syntactic inversions in fashion in the writing of the time, I suppose "We have here to do it" might occur -- the intended meaning being the same as that of "We have to do it here" -- but that didn't cross my mind. (Brain cramp!)

In "we have (here) to deal with it" I was showing "we have to deal with it here" with the "here" already moved (inverted, if you will) into the position shown. I was showing it that way to block the interpretation "have to" = "must".

After thinking some more about it, I'd have to say that the "must" interpretation is still a distinct possibility, but from the viewpoint of the older style of writing. In today's English such convoluted structures rarely occur, and intervening words between "have" and "to" are much more likely nowadays to suggest to the reader that the "must" aspect is being blocked.

So we can have: "we have to deal with it here" becoming "with which we have to deal here" becoming "with which we have here to deal".
Or we can have: "we have to deal with it here" becoming "we have here to deal with it" becoming "with which we have here to deal".

(depending on which order you choose to apply the changes)

["here" is an adverb of place in all of these, not a noun.]

As I say, it's a puzzle!

Taka · Answer

If it makes your native Californian brain ache, then you should know how painful it is for my humble Japanese brain--although I spent four years in the States, it doesn't help at all this time.

Anyway, now it seems that there is no grammatically vaild explanation other than the block-analysis which supports "the knowledge that we have before us (waiting) to be dealt with" interpretation. Still would you say:

:

The underlying structure is (where "it" refers to " ... knowledge"):

"... knowledge" + "we have it here [it is present] -- (in order) to deal with it".

or:
"... knowledge" + "we have to [must] deal with it here".

My preference is for the first analysis.

?

--
(By the way, I checked Amazon.com and found that it was published in 1991. Doesn't seem like it's old.)

CalifJim · Answer

That date 1991 is amazing to me! I had no idea anybody was still writing like that!

My preference was for the first analysis before you prodded me into examining it more deeply.

Now I'm inclined to think that the "must" interpretation is really better from the viewpoint of a syntactic anaysis. Yet I'm still inclined to say that the intervening "here" attenuates the "must"-ness!!!

(But ask me again next month!)

I don't think there is any more I can say about this now completely overworked example!

Structual analysis

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions