How would you diagram "I have to go"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mchoi40

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
United States
I'm aware sentences like "I want to go", "to go" is infinitive as direct object.
However, I was told that "have to" is modal verb, then regular form of verb is followed.
If that's true, how would this be diagrammed? Would "have to go" all be in verb because "have to" is an auxiliary verb, just like would go, must do, etc.?

If above statement is false, would I diagram "I have to go" just like "I want to go"?
 

Charlie Bernstein

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I can't diagram without a pen and paper and a refresher course.

But, yes, your guess is correct. "I want to go" and "I have to go" diagram exactly the same way - as are "I need to go," "I wish to go," "I long to go," "I like to go," and "I hate to go."

It's all the same construction.
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Would "have to go" all be in verb?


NOT A TEACHER

Hello, Mchoi:



I have found some information that may interest you.

According to two of my favorite grammar books, you are correct.

1."I have to make a speech."

a In a Reed-Kellogg diagram, the infinitive "to make" is combined with the verb "have" in a close connection. That is, the "infinitive becomes part of the verb phrase." When an infinitive is used this way, it is called a complementary infinitive.

b. As you said, "I have to make a speech" is about the same as "I must make a speech."

2. Complementary infinitives are often combined with these verbs: use, have, go, is, happen, etc.

a. For example: It is going to rain. / You are to leave in an hour. / I used to read Latin at night.


Sources: Pence and Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English (1947 and 1963), page 69; House and Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (1931 and 1950), pages 335 - 336.
 
Last edited:

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
No, I’m afraid you have the analysis wrong. "Have" can be an auxiliary verb, but never a modal, and "to go" is not direct object.

Most speakers treat stative "have" is a lexical verb, not an auxiliary one. That it is a lexical verb is evident from the fact that the auxiliary verb "do" has to be added to form questions and negatives : "Do I have to go?" / "I don’t have to go",

A very few speakers do, however, treat it as an auxiliary verb, in which case the auxiliary "do" is not required: "Have I to go?" / "I haven’t to go."

Your example "I have to go" is called a catenative construction. The term catenative comes from the Latin word for 'chain', which is appropriate here since there are two consecutive verbs, “want” and “go”, forming a chain.

The catenative verb "have" has the non-finite infinitival clause "to go", not as its direct object, but as its catenative complement.

"I want to go" is analysed the same way: "want" is a catenative verb, and the non-finite clause "to go" is its catenative complement, not direct object.

Note that with only a very few exceptions, direct objects are always noun phrases, not clauses.

Here is a simplified tree diagram. Click on the image to enlarge it.


I have to go.jpg
 
Last edited:

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Note that with only a very few exceptions, direct objects are always noun phrases, not clauses.
I'd be interested to know what, in your view, makes clauses unworthy of direct-object status, and what the exceptions are.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top