have one to do

[notletrest]

1.I must have the boy clean out the drawer. [ DU]

If you hit the child again you’ll have me to reckon with.[LD.921]My problem is why there is the to in the last one.

2.I don't know whether "I saw a young man older than his father there."is righy or not. Because grammatically it is right.If it is wrong,then is the following sentence "All the vehicles drew up at the trafic lights." right?

3."It has taken us two years to settle that loan, but at last we are paid up." we can say "we plaid up the debt ," or " the debt is peid up by us". Grammatically , it cannot be in the passive voice . If we regard " paid up" as the complement of the subject , that means we are the loaner. Please explain the "are" to me.
Thanks a lot!

[notletrest]

1.I must have the boy clean out the drawer. [ DU]

If you hit the child again you’ll have me to reckon with.[LD.921]My problem is why there is the to in the last one.

2.I don't know whether "I saw a young man older than his father there."is righy or not. Because grammatically it is right.If it is wrong,then is the following sentence "All the vehicles drew up at the trafic lights." right?

3."It has taken us two years to settle that loan, but at last we are paid up." we can say "we plaid up the debt ," or " the debt is peid up by us". Grammatically , it cannot be in the passive voice . If we regard " paid up" as the complement of the subject , that means we are the loaner. Please explain the "are" to me.
Thanks a lot!

I don't know why there is no answer.

[Tdol]

1.I must have the boy clean out the drawer. [ DU]
If you hit the child again you’ll have me to reckon with.[LD.921]My problem is why there is the to in the last one.

It's not the same- the first involves ordering the boy to clean the drawer out and the second means that the speaker will be angry and respond if the person hits the child again.

2.I don't know whether "I saw a young man older than his father there."is righy or not. Because grammatically it is right.If it is wrong,then is the following sentence "All the vehicles drew up at the trafic lights." right?

The sentence is not ungrammatical, but it makes no logical sense. I can see no connection with the second sentence.

3."It has taken us two years to settle that loan, but at last we are paid up." we can say "we plaid up the debt ," or " the debt is peid up by us". Grammatically , it cannot be in the passive voice . If we regard " paid up" as the complement of the subject , that means we are the loaner. Please explain the "are" to me.

We are paid up = We have paid in full

[Tdol]

I don't know why there is no answer.

There are many posts and people are answering in their free time. There are no guarantees that everything will get an answer.

[notletrest]

It's not the same- the first involves ordering the boy to clean the drawer out and the second means that the speaker will be angry and respond if the person hits the child again.


The sentence is not ungrammatical, but it makes no logical sense. I can see no connection with the second sentence.



We are paid up = We have paid in full

First let me express my thanks to Tdol.Then I should criticise myself for two spelling mistakes about paid in my last post.At last , I still want to say something about the answer.
1.For the first question I want to know the real meaning of "have" in the two sentenes. There is nothing to do with the attitude of the speaker.
In my eyes the second " have" is more like this "had" :" I had an extraordinary thing happen to me when I was a little boy." (without to bebore happen!)
By the way, in China a famous professor wrote "in the following two sentences , the haves have the same meaning : " I will have someone to translate the srory for me. I must have the boy clean out the drawers.""
Is he right?
2.What on earth is the meaning of the sentene "All vehicles drew up at the traffic lights."?
3."we are paid up = we have paid up in full ". I don't know what is the relation between "in full " and "are ". In gereral , can we say " be + past participle = have + past participle "?
I am expecting you!

[Tdol]

1 No- in the first it means that the person will be provided with someone who will do the translation- they will not have to arrange it themselves. The second means that the person will order/force/instruct the boy to do it.
2 It means they stopped.
3 You cannot synthesize a rule from a single example- sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. The relationship here is between paid up and paid in full, not the verbs. Up gives the idea of completion not are.

[notletrest]

1 No- in the first it means that the person will be provided with someone who will do the translation- they will not have to arrange it themselves. The second means that the person will order/force/instruct the boy to do it.
2 It means they stopped.
3 You cannot synthesize a rule from a single example- sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. The relationship here is between paid up and paid in full, not the verbs. Up gives the idea of completion not are.

Sorry to take you much time!
1.Your level is higher than that of scholars of English in China. I appreciate your explanation to "have". Chinese scholars hold all "have + one +( to ) do's " as complex objects only. Some only admit "have + one + do ".
2.Did you ever see all vehicles stopped at traffic lights ,which I have never experienced so far? The sight exists no more than a young man being older than his father. Even if it is possible, but there is no particular condition in it. So I think it makes no logical sense.
3.Would you give me more expamples in which there are "be + p.p. = have +p.p."
Waiting for you sincerely!

[5jj]

3.Would you give me more expamples in which there are "be + p.p. = have +p.p."

I can think of the following in which the be and have constructions are sometimes similar in meaning:

camped, faded, finished, grown up, parked, recovered, retired, stopped.

With be, the past participle is more like an adjective than a verb.

[Tdol]

2.Did you ever see all vehicles stopped at traffic lights ,which I have never experienced so far? The sight exists no more than a young man being older than his father. Even if it is possible, but there is no particular condition in it. So I think it makes no logical sense.

I am not sure why not- it makes perfect sense to me. Imagine that there were only three cars in the street at the time and the lights turned red.

[Barb_D]

The "his" in "his father" may have a different antecedant than "the young man."

Tommy is such a sweet kid, but I wish his teenage parents were better able to deal with being parents. Today I saw a young man who was older than his [Tommy's] father, and he [the young man] was enjoying just being a kid. I can't imagine being a father at 16.