-------------------
He meant for us to dig. I'll have Joe fetch a shovel
as soon as we (come to him)."
...
"Well, that was easy," said Kate, putting the letter
away inside her bucket. "Now all we have to do is get
there!"
-------------------
If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a
shovel" and "Now all we have to do is _to_ get there!"
Why do those Infinitives are without "to"?
In formal English, the preposition is generally
included where it may not always be in colloquial
speech. What I see here is a private conversation
(i.e. you may notice turns of phrase Miss Stickler
didn't accept). That's the easy explanation for
the last sentence
... the other is more complex. Although it struck
me as "not English" with the added preposition, I
wasn't really sure why until after wading through
multiple definitions of the verb "to have". It
seems that if "have" means a third party will be
asked &/or required to do the job the preposition is
omitted, as in the first sentence you asked about.
Ok.
BTW, you called those "to"s as "propositions". But
prepositions are put before nouns? For instance, in
English textbook in Russia we call those "to"s as
particles.
1) From my POV there's general agreement as to the eight parts of speech
I learned about in my youth. I know I can count on the dictionary in
almost any European language to employ the same terminology even if I
don't understand their idea of gender. And until you & Anton started
asking more advanced questions the Russians seemed content... [grin].
2) During the 1960's various linguists objected to the old rules & tried
to make improvements... one of which I suspect may be the addition of
the word "particle" in this context. Not all dictionaries include it
because it's not universally accepted & if you find it at all you may
find little or no general agreement as to what it means. At least if
e.g. somebody adds articles to the parts of speech I get the picture,
because I already know the term "article" as a subset of "adjective".
I'll have Joe fetch a shovel
Now all we have to do is get there!
If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a shovel"
and "Now all we have to do is _to_ get there!"
I'll have Joe fetch a shovel Now all we have to do is get there!
If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a shovel"
and "Now all we have to do is _to_ get there!"
Do you entertain similar misgivings about `let', as in "Let me
fetch the shovel"; or about "make", as in "I will make you regret
it"; or about `have' but with passive voice, e.g. "I will have my
hair cut"; or when there is no a verb at all, as in the
Huey "piano" Smith song -- "We will have him on the alimony"?
< "I will have my hair cut" >
"Cut" is not a verb.
"I will have my hair cut" >
"Cut" is not a verb.
I am sure it is:
I will have him repair my car. (1)
I will have my car repaired. (2)
`repair' is certainly a verb in both cases. You may call it a past participal in the second instance,
because it partakes of the verb, or, is partially a verb.
Analyse the present-tense example, if you
like it more: "I will have her cut my hair," where `cut' is a verb
beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt.
I will have him repair my car. (1)
"Repair" is a verb, and you use the direct object here.
And therefore you had to use "to" before the verb.
"He asked me to wait a little".
You may call it a past participal in the second
instance, because it partakes of the verb, or, is
partially a verb.
I don't understand your logic here.
At least if e.g. somebody adds articles to the parts
of speech I get the picture, because I already know
the term "article" as a subset of "adjective".
Is possible -- two perfect bricks!
Is [it] possible -- two perfect bricks!
Two bats with one brick? I take that as a
compliment.... :-))
Brick text is a colloquial term for a paragraph written in
monospace font that is perfectly right-adjusted without
additional whitespace. In your article from 2023-04-04
23:52 you wrote two of them:
Brick text is a colloquial term for a paragraph written
in monospace font that is perfectly right-adjusted
without additional whitespace. In your article from
2023-04-04 23:52 you wrote two of them:
Well, there are doubled spaces between sentences.
But, yes -- not tripled or quadrupled or too wide
stretches between words, like you'd expect in MS Word
and such. And the bricks appear so neatly packed it's
almost unreal. :-)
This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in
typewriting and in the better typographical books.
This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used inRemove the article.
typewriting and in the better typographical books.
Well, there are doubled spaces between sentences.This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in typewriting
and in the better typographical books. If you will remember
the book on witchcraft in Suspiria, it has sentence spacing,
too.
This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in
typewriting and in the better typographical books. If
you will remember the book on witchcraft in Suspiria,
it has sentence spacing, too.
Which one do you have in mind? I rewatched the original
1977 movie a couple of months ago, but unsurprisingly, I
took no notice of such detail and could've missed if
there were any brief close-ups of a book. Because I was
so much stunned by its coloring and cinematography. :-)
P.S. do you have any issues quote-replying my msgs?
Like occasional disappearing or duplicating of
characters?
P.S. do yu have any issuees quote-replying my msgs?I haven noiced any. If thhere are any issues, we shall see
Like occaional disappeariing or duplicatingoof
characters?
them in my posts.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 07:27:42 |
| Calls: | 97 |
| Files: | 4,646 |
| Messages: | 217,588 |