Have as an auxiliary verb

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Is the verb ''have'' used as an auxiliary verb only when it is used to make perfect verb forms? For example, ''She has just arrived.''
In the examples below have is not used as an auxiliary, is it?

''I am going to have a bath''.
''We have 2 cars''.
''I had to work yesterday''.

 

[Tarheel]

Hello.

Is the verb ''have'' used as an auxiliary verb only when it is used to make perfect verb forms? For example, ''She has just arrived.''
In the examples below have is not used as an auxiliary, is it?

''I am going to have breakfast''.
''We have 2 cars''.
''I had to work yesterday''.

You are right.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm not sure why Tarheel changed "a bath" to "breakfast". In BrE, "have a bath" is absolutely correct. Perhaps it doesn't work in AmE - I believe "take a bath" is more natural in that variant.

 

[jutfrank]

In your first two examples, it's not an auxiliary. In the third, it's a modal auxiliary expressing obligation.

 

[teechar]

I would call "have to " a semi-modal.

 

[PaulMatthews]

"Have" is always an auxiliary verb when it marks the perfect tense. And it's a lexical verb in your second example. But your other two examples need explaining.

When "have" occurs in clauses describing states, expressing such meanings as possession or obligation, usage is divided. Most speakers treat it as a lexical verb, but some treat it as an auxiliary, which means that in the negative forms we have either don't have or haven't, and analogously with inversion. Compare:

I don't have to sign both forms (lexical verb)
Do I have to sign both forms? ( " )

I haven't to sign both forms. (auxiliary verb)
Have I to sign both forms? ( " )

 

[GoesStation]

I haven't to sign both forms. (auxiliary verb)
Have I to sign both forms? ( " )

I find it hard to imagine an American English speaker producing either of these sentences. The second might exist in some regions and social groups, but the first seems practically impossible.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I find it hard to imagine an American English speaker producing either of these sentences. The second might exist in some regions and social groups, but the first seems practically impossible.

There are other varieties other than AmE, you know. And I did say that most speakers treat it has a lexical verb.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I wouldn't say that it was an auxiliary verb. It just happen that the principal auxiliary verbs BE and HAVE do not (BE) and may not (HAVE) use auxiliary DO in their negative and interrogative forms. when they are lexical verbs.

It is a fact of English grammar that in the kind of construction under consideration, lexical verbs require do support in non-affirmatives, while auxiliary verbs do not; hence the have in my second and third examples can only be an auxiliary.

With 'HAVE to', the non-use of DO is much rarer than with the already uncommon use with lexical 'HAVE'.

I did say that most speakers treat it as a lexical verb.

The use or non-use of DO does not miraculously change it into another type of verb

See above.

 

[GoesStation]

There are other varieties other than AmE, you know.

Indeed. That's why I specified American English.

 

[Phaedrus]

2. I have a question for you.

It's great to see you back, Piscean.

I do have a question for you, actually, or for other speakers of British English here.

If there is negation but no contraction, does have still work as an auxiliary in British English?

2a. I haven't a question for you.
2b. I have not a question for you.

Also, is emphatic use possible with British have? Can you say I have a question for you instead of I do have a question for you?

 

[PaulMatthews]

HAVE as a lexical verb can pattern differently from other lexical verbs.

Or would you perhaps claim that it's a fact that in (1) below HAVE is an auxiliary verb but in (2) it's a lexical verb?

1, Have you a question for us?
2. I have a question for you.

For those speakers who take stative "have" as an auxiliary verb, 1. and 2. are both auxiliaries.

For those who take it as a lexical verb, 1. is not acceptable ("Do you have a question for us" is required") and 2. is thus a lexical verb.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Thanks.

In the schools of grammar that I follow, HAVE is an auxiliary in neither of those. It conveys meaning rather than grammatical function like any other lexical verb. The fact that it is almost the only lexical verb that can still (for a small minority of speakers of BrE) be used without auxiliary DO is irrelevant. Six hundred years ago, Auxiliary DO was hardly used in the way it is today with any lexical verb; sixty years ago I was taught that using auxiliary DO with HAVE was substandard (but most of my schoolmasters were ageing Oxbridge graduates.)

You're referring to semantics. This thread is about syntax.

Today, I am one of the old-fashioned few who sometimes (far from always) use lexical HAVE without auxiliary DO in NICE utterances

That sounds like a contradiction in terms. The NICE properties apply to auxiliary verbs, so we can hardly say that verbs that exhibit the NICE properties are lexical!

(Non-)Contraction makes no difference to HAVE's status as a lexical verb (or indeed as an auxiliary verb in, for example, I have n't/not seen that film.

I might utter 2a, but even I would be unlikely to utter 2b. I would say either 2a or 2c: I have no question(s) for you.

It's possible.

I don't see what that has to do with the possible status of stative "have" as an auxiliary. Syntactically, auxiliary verbs are those that exhibit the NICE properties.