I spent an entertaining half-hour recently, trying to explain the idiom (is it an idiom?) 'all you have to do is ask' to some ESL students.
They got the meaning, eventually. It's best understood as a kind of joke, emphasising the simplicity of what's called for, apparently; "Here's everything you have to do, I'm going to explain the sum total of all the action you'll need to take, get yourself a pencil and paper because this will be the 100%-complete and unabridged guide, OK, here goes; ask."
They are still complaining about the grammar, however. (These are advanced students, not happy with 'just because'.) What is going on, grammatically, in this construction and others like it? Why can we have the base form of a verb after 'to be', as the subject complement? My pesky students insisted that it should be 'asking' or 'to ask'. Can you think of any other examples which might shed light on the grammar point? ******************************************************** 05-10-03, 11:39 PM maiku Your students appear to me to be quite perceptive, nnn, because in fact the variants "asking" and "to ask" both occur in cases like the one you mention. Thus, some slight reordering of constituents gives us
To ask is all you need to do
or, with a passive transformation of the basic sentence
Asking is all that needs to be done.
Whether the infinitive form of a verb used as a true complement of another verb is or is not marked with "to" is highly idiosyncratic in English. Thus, we say "John wanted to die," but also "John dared not appear in public." Moreover, the "gerundive" can also occur, as in "John risked asking the question." Note that all of these are cases in which "John" is the subject of the embedded verb.
In your original sentence, though, ask (whether it appears superficially with a marked infinitive or in the -ing form) is really the underlying subject of the sentence, and not really a complement at all. Which of course further complicates matters.
Depending on how the constituents are ordered, I can get all three forms of the verb in my own dialect of English. As noted above.
[This message was edited by maiku on 05-10-03 at 11:48 PM.] 05-11-03, 03:01 AM Ewood27 Surely it is just that sometimes the word "to" is "understood".
"All you have to do is ask" would be quite grammatical and acceptable as "All you have to do is to ask", but that gives two "to"s in quick succession, which is untidy, so the second "to" may be dropped and "understood".
If I may rephrase your second example, maiku, "John did not dare appear in public" would be fine, and so would "John did not dare to appear in public". Quite why the "to" can become understood in this case I cannot explain. Offhand I can't think of any verb other than "dare" where this can happen. Perhaps "dare" implies "to" - or else it's just one of the many oddities of English!
05-11-03, 11:16 AM maiku The infinitive is regularly unmarked in English when it occurs as the complement of a so-called modal verb, e.g., will, would, can, could,, etc. Dare is behaving like a true modal verb in the example I gave. It also behaves this way in a sentence like "None dare call it treason."
The verb need is another that can be used like a modal, e.g., in "Irish need not apply." Compare this with "Irishmen do not need to apply," where need is a true verb.
Another way of saying that a syntactic element is "understood" is to say that it is present in underlying structure, but is deleted in some contexts. I think we were agreeing on this point, really, Ewood, except that I would stress the point that the deletion is never merely a haphazard thing, done merely to avoid saying something that sounds a bit awkward. Language is nearly always far more rule-governed than that, although the rules can be very tricky to formulate correctly.
Note that we regularly say "We want John to go," "we forced John to go," and so on. But with other verbs the "to" gets deleted: "we made John go." "We had John go."
My main point above was that nnn's students were in fact pretty much right in wondering what happened to the "to" in "All you have to do is (to) ask." As the related sentence "To ask is all you have to do" clearly shows, the "to" can be "understood" just because it is in some sense really there to begin with.
05-11-03, 11:31 AM Ewood27 I was once shown a book of English grammar written (in English) for non-native speakers. I hadn't realised how many rules and exceptions I apply every day until I saw them spelt out.
Other than that occasion, I have never had to look at English through an outsider's eyes until I came to this forum (and Jeeves before it). It sure is a complex language! It would never occur to me to question the syntax of the original sentence, but I take your point.
05-11-03, 11:32 AM newnickname Thanks for the answers, guys. This occurred to me;
All you must do is ask. All he is doing is asking. The best thing to do is to ask (ask).
It's not really a point of grammar, but of style; the form of 'ask' isn't arbitrary. It reflects the form of 'do'. Of course, the 'to' of the second infinitive can be dropped, as with a second infinitive after 'and'.
Another 'exception', with the base form being used where we would expect the infinitive, is with causatives. I had Maiku explain the grammar. (I got Maiku to explain the grammar.)
My students will be happier with 'Hey, it happens sometimes' than with 'Just because'. Smile
05-11-03 01:26 PM maiku
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: Another 'exception', with the base form being used where we would expect the infinitive, is with causatives. I had Maiku explain the grammar. (I got Maiku to explain the grammar.)
Your mention of the term causative causes me to post yet another reply, nnn.
You could hardly think of a more causative verb than cause itself, yet oddly enough it takes a marked infinitive, not an unmarked one, as in my first sentence above. Make (in the sense of "to make someone do something") is also causative, yet it regularly takes the unmarked infinitive, as in
(1) The devil made me do it, or (2) The inquisition made Simon confess his heresy
Note that if either of these is passivized, the "to" reappears:
(3) I was made to do it by the devil (4) Simon was made to confess his heresy (by the inquisition)
The verb "have" in sentences like "We had John do it" is yet again different. It can't be made passive at all: *John was had to do it by us.
You can't get me to explain the grammar of the verb "have" in this case, and you won't be having me explain it here, either, because quite frankly it baffles me.
The grammar of English is indeed a highly complex thing. But so is the grammar of every other natural language I've ever tried to examine in detail. And it isn't at all the great number of irregularities that is the problem. Exceptions can simply be listed, after all. What cannot merely be listed, but must be analysed, is the existence of class after class of subregularities within the major patterns.
End of lecture. Wink
05-11-03, 05:04 PM Ewood27 The use of "have" as in "We had John do it" is relatively new, at least in British English. It has come in very much during my lifetime. It may have become accepted as standard English, but is really slang, which obeys no rules.
Previously we would have said, "We got (or persuaded) John to do it", a completely regular construction. 05-11-03, 09:57 PM
newnickname How about...
We let John do it. We made John do it. We helped John do it.
...are these also recent?
05-12-03, 03:37 AM Ewood27 Good point, nnn. No, they're not. I have a feeling that that use of "have" was carried across the Atlantic by that bastion of good taste, historical accuracy and precise and elegant language, Hollywood.
05-12-03, 09:40 AM maiku The construction with "have" + unmarked infinitive predates Hollywood considerably, Ewood.
For example, in Henry IV, Part 1, (Act ii, scene 3), Shakespeare has Prince Hal say
But hark you Kate, I must not have you henceforth question me...
05-12-03, 09:53 AM Ewood27 As someone says in Hamlet, "A hit, a very palpable hit".
If it's Shakespeare, it's not an Americanism, and it's before even my time. That leaves me with just three words to say:
I was wrong.
05-12-03, 11:45 AM FredPuli I hope the students don't go on to ask how 'We had John do it' differs in meaning from 'We had John to do it' or 'We had John doing it' ! Anyway you have them henceforth to question us.
05-12-03, 12:20 PM maiku
quote:Originally posted by FredPuli: I hope the students don't go on to ask how 'We had John do it' differs in meaning from 'We had John to do it' or 'We had John doing it' ! Anyway you have them henceforth to question us.
Good observations, Fred. Of course we always have you to add an interesting quibble or so to the mix, don't we?
As for nnn's students, I would hope he might encourage them to think that henceforth they have us here, ready and willing, for them to question.
05-13-03, 06:54 AM FredPuli Ewood, join the club!I only learned from au pairs though. I say, if you think that a book on English grammar written for foreigners is a revelation stop there.Whatever you do, don't look in the ones written by academics for the rest of us ( or each other ?). Here's the Cambridge Grammar on 'dynamic have': " In 'He had it painted. He didn't have it painted. Did he have it painted?' (Have ) is a catenative verb taking an object and a past-participial complement; it can also take a bare infinitival; 'Did she have you retype it?' " Well, that seems plain enough. Silly of me to ask really ! If only they could've found the bloke and asked him about the painting, they'd have saved a lot of trouble.'Catenative' is apparently derived from the everyday word 'catenate'('to connect like the links of a chain') though it's not in my O.E.D. Teasing apart and being serious it is a pity that logic and, I suppose grammar, which is its relation, are not taught more widely. In France nobody qualifies for university education without passing an exam in philosophy,no less, adapted to their intended course,whatever field they wish to study.Every schoolchild learns formal logic, too.
05-13-03, 08:27 AM maiku The Cambridge Grammar analysis you cite, Fred, is indeed next to useless. The notion of have as a "catenative" verb taking an object and an infinitival complement as well is simply muddled thinking.
In a sentence like "He had you retype it," you isn't anything like a direct object. This is demonstrated sufficiently by the non-existence of the passive "You were had to retype it by him." Note that I have already pointed out this missing passive in connection with the sentence "We had John do it" above. (And please don't come back at me by citing wholly different sentences in which "you" is logically the underlying direct object, such as "You were had by him in agreeing to retype it". If you do that, you've already been had in advance).
My own analysis is that this kind of "have" takes a sentential complement, with the general pattern have [s x do something]s. An analysis like this is supported by the synonymy (or near synonymy) of the closely related sentence "Your retyping of it was what he had done."
The fact is that syntax is usually taught in our "grammar" schools by schoolmarmish types who don't really know much about it themselves. Mostly they teach normative grammar, or correct usage. This is really a far cry from the subject of syntax that linguists like me find so challenging and compelling.
05-13-03, 09:26 AM newnickname What about...
"John's had his car stolen!"
05-13-03, 10:56 AM maiku A very interesting example, nnn. The sentence "John (has) had his car stolen" (or, eqivalently "John (has) had someone steal his car") is ambiguous. It can mean
(1) Someone's stealing his car is what John (has) had done
and in this sense it is just like the sentence "He had you retype it" which I commented about already above. But it can also mean merely that John experienced having his car stolen, and in that sense it is not paraphrasable as above, i.e., by (1).
If I say "Vinnie had his restaurant torched in order to collect insurance fraudulently," then I can also say "Someone's torching his restaurant was what Vinnie had done in order to collect insurance fraudulently."
On the other hand, if I say "Marie had her license revoked," I probably mean she experienced someone's revoking her license, not that someone's revoking her license was what she had done (for some purpose of her own).
Of course the ambiguity can be pinned on two different senses of the verb "have" if you like, one meaning to experience, as in "to have a good time" and the other meaning to cause or bring about, as in "have the prisoners shot." But along with this difference in meaning goes a difference in syntactic behavior.
P.S. I hate the English verb have. It is utterly nasty and intractable, and I'll have nothing further to do with it. Razz
[This message was edited by maiku on 05-13-03 at 11:04 AM.]
05-13-03, 02:30 PM Ewood27 Maiku, dare I say that all newnickname's students have to do is ask you?
05-13-03, 02:51 PM maiku
quote:Originally posted by Ewood27: Maiku, dare I say that all newnickname's students have to do is ask you?
Of course you may dare to say that, Ewood, but in reply I dare say that it is no dare for me to think that nnn's students have enough to do already and are probably well enough off out of his instruction of them so that to have them asking anyone else anything about grammar rather than to have them merely ask him would be something they need not do, and in fact, wholly superfluous. Wink
[This message was edited by maiku on 05-13-03 at 03:00 PM.]
05-13-03, 04:27 PM FredPuli All you have to do is... Why would I come back with sentences using expressions such as 'you've been had' as though they were examples of the passive form of 'have' in 'have someone do', Maiku ? Goodness!I wouldn't make jokes about such a matter.It's far too serious. I might joke that "I know the difference between a gerund and a gerundive; I'm going to keep a list of any gerundives, when I find any in English, in my 'memoranda '!!" though.I'm happy that the Cambridge Grammar exists. It employed fifteen academics (two editors and thirteen collaborators) for ages to write a book that other academics can criticize.Then , with any luck, other academics will criticize the criticism and the original fifteen defend themselves and so on ad infinitum. Believe me, around here,a few miles from Cambridge, we dream of this state of affairs. Harmless enough, it gives employment to the needy.It is good that grammarians are achieving it for a change.It was always a preserve of the English literature and the history dons before !
05-13-03, 04:32 PM Ewood27 Hmmm .... I have a copy of my great-great-grandfather's Will, written in 1856 on paper 14½" x 11". The Will covers 2¾ pages without a single punctuation mark. It was done like that deliberately to ensure that nobody inserted any character, thereby possibly changing the sense of the Will's provisions.
As with your reply, maiku, it needs several readings (not helped by the impenetrable "legal script" in which it is handwritten) but then makes good sense.
05-13-03, 05:03 PM FredPuli Those of us who had to learn pleading, Ewood,were taught that a perfect legal document had no punctuation in it, even in the 1960's. The reason was exactly the one you give.In consequence we all tried to use as little punctuation as possible. The reason why draftsmen write 'Will' and not 'will', for the testamentary document is related .No confusion can arise then between a statement of a wish and the document itself. The wish is written 'will' and the testament 'Will'.Imagine the fun with'contrary to my will /Will' for example.It was bad enough working out when 'mother' meant 'mother of my children' not 'my mother'in the instructions given by some testators without making confusion of your own !
05-13-03, 05:18 PM Ewood27 This fellow was a magistrates' clerk, so he must have known a lawyer to draft it for him. He had a reasonable amount to leave and was trying to protect his daughters' interests before the Married Women's Property Act existed by setting up a trust administered by his sons. There may be no punctuation but there are an awful lot of "and"s.
Some of the names I can only decipher because I know them from other sources. Legal script is unlike any other hand I have come across.
05-13-03, 05:36 PM maiku It was no part of my intention, Fred, to dismiss altogether the worth of the Cambridge Grammar (which I've never seen). I thought, in fact, I was merely agreeing with you in saying that its analysis of the use of the verb have then in question was not really very useful (or have you now changed your mind about it between posts?) No doubt this is in general a very fine, reputable, and scholary work, and we are all probably better off that it was written rather than not (especially the 15 or so grammarians you talk about).
I would submit, however, that this grammar very likely suffers from an undue dependence on notions derived solely from the study of Latin grammar, and subsequently misapplied to the grammar of English. You yourself suggested that this might be something of a problem for you in an earlier thread, as I recall. I think you might have had a point there, Fred. English is not Latin. Too bad, really, that the best educated Britons were for so long a time brought up practically in ignorance of the complexity and beauty of their own native tongue!
I quite appreciate your "joke" about gerundives. Of course English doesn't have any of these in the sense that Latin did. I used the term myself in a previous post in this thread in connection with the sentence "John risked asking the question." The phrase "asking the question" in this sentence is called a gerundive universally by grammarians in this country; it is distinct from the bare "gerund" asking in that it comes included with its complements and modifiers (if any).
As for my anticipating your coming back at me with jokes about some use of a verb I might otherwise have omitted to mention in discussing certain other ones, all I can say is, whatever made me think that, Fred? Confused
Ewood: Is the manuscript you're now discussing with Fred the same one you asked about in a so far unanswered question in the Books-Literature forum, the one that consisted at least in part of a quotation from a work by Alexander Humboldt? I've seen that one, but I can't help you out, since I don't have access to the work in question.
05-13-03, 08:33 PM FredPuli A gerund is derived from a verb and is used as a noun.The writers of the Cambridge Grammar do not refer to a 'gerundive' only to a 'gerund'.They give two simple examples of it :1) 'Destroying the files was a serious mistake' 2) 'I regret destroying the files'. I do not see how 'John risked asking the question' differs essentially from their second example. If you change 'risked' for 'regretted' it would not make any difference to the grammar that I can see.In all the cases a noun could be used instead. However, the gerund to you is the 'bare' 'asking'.It becomes a gerundive simply by the addition of the complements. It seems to me that you are right to specify 'in this country', the US, when you write that. I expect that the Cambridge writers know from the language and grammar from which grammarians have taken 'gerund' that a 'gerundive' is taken from the verb and is used as an adjective; it is quite different from a gerund. In Latin, indeed, it conveys a meaning of obligation or necessity; 'memorandum' is a gerundive of neuter singular, any thing 'that must/should be remembered'. That is, after all, the point of the 'joke'. It is also why the word gerundive is not in their book, even to mean 'a gerund with complements'.It is also why I cannot think of one in English. I do note that, from Late Middle English on, the word gerundive was once used to mean 'gerund' ( see O.E.D.) but that innocent use does not explain this American one. It is a pity and confusing if a word is appropriated and used with a meaning which is so far from its true or original one.
05-14-03, 02:48 AM Ewood27 Maiku, no, not the sane document. The Humboldt one is a small piece of paper with very small writing in copperplate hand tucked into an old (1757) carry-to-Church Bible. It is not important either - very much a dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s in my family history interest. Thanks for remembering!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
