We no longer have anything to say vs. We no longer have to say anything

[shootingstar]

She had known three types of silence in relationships. There was passive-agressive silence, obviously, there was the we-no-longer-have-anything-to-say silence, and then there was the silence that Eduardo and she seemed to have cultivated. The silence of not needing to talk. Of just being together, of together-being. The way you could be happily silent with yourself.
(The Midnigt Library by Matt Haig, episode Buena Vista Vineyard)

Is there any difference in meaning between the two sentences "We no longer have anything to say" and "We no longer have to say anything"?

 

[5jj]

"We no longer have anything to say"

We have nothing more to say.

"We no longer have to say anything"?

We have no obligation to say anything more.

 

[shootingstar]

Very well. However, to bring them to a general level, what does "have something to do" and "have to do something" express? I see "have to do something" expresses "obligation". However, what does "have something to do" express in contrast - generally speaking? Is there a general term to distinguish it from "obligation" or rather "have to do something"?

 

[SoothingDave]

The "have" is expressing possession, basically. In the same way that I have a car, I have something to do this weekend.

 

[jutfrank]

We no longer have to say anything

= We have no obligation to say anything more.
or
= We have no need to say anything more.

what does "have something to do" express in contrast - generally speaking?

This is a question I've been asking for several years. I believe that this structure can also express some kind of internal obligation. My guess is that the two forms ('have to do something' and 'have something to do') are connected historically, though I have no evidence of this. Compare the following:

I have a lot of work to do this afternoon.
I have to do a lot of work this afternoon.

My claim is that these two are synonymous. However, not all such structurally similar pairs are synonymous:

You have a calculator to use.
You have to use a calculator.

These are not synonymous. The former expresses a sense of possession, as SoothingDave has noted above.

Is there a general term to distinguish it from "obligation" or rather "have to do something"?

No.

 

[Annabel Lee]

However, what does "have something to do" express in contrast - generally speaking? Is there a general term to distinguish it from "obligation" or rather "have to do something"?

There is a sense of ownership of the thing or action with "have something to do." If a student says, "I have a paper to write this weekend," there is an obligation, but he or she owns it. In contrast, with "have to do something," there is a sense of external compulsion: "I have to write a paper this weekend." Notice that in "have to do something," "have to" is usually pronounced "hafta": "I hafta write a paper this weekend."

From a syntactic standpoint, the infinitive phrase in "have something to do" can be analyzed as an infinitival relative clause, unlike the infinitive in "have to do something," in which "have to" functions as a semi-modal. "Have to" is also a raising construction, which allows for dummy subjects: "There have to be more utensils around here" / "There has to be another dog." In those sentences, "have to" has epistemic meaning rather than obligational meaning.

Notice that dummy subjects don't work with the other construction: There has a paper to write.

To see that "to do" in "have something to do" is an infinitival relative clause, simply add a preposition, such that we can have stranding, as in "We didn't have anything to talk about," or pied piping, as in "We didn't have anything about which to talk." In the latter construction, the relative pronoun ("which") appears, which is evidence that it is a relative clause, albeit a nonfinite one.

An amusing example comes to mind from the world of film. In Amadeus (1985), Mozart's wife is harshly critical of him at one point during the film. She says something like this: "You marry him; you won't have a pot to piss in." Notice how wonderfully and laughably different in meaning "You won't have a pot to piss in" (= You won't have a pot in which to piss) is from "You won't have to piss in a pot." I trust the difference isn't obvious only to native speakers.

When "have to V" appears in relative clauses, there can be ambiguity. I believe that when FDR famously said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he did NOT mean "The only thing we HAFTA fear is fear itself." Rather, the meaning is that we have something (namely, fear) to fear; we have fear itself to fear. Fear itself is to be feared. We should shun fear. The speech was made around the time of the Great Depression in the United States.

 

[shootingstar]

Thank you very much.

She says something like this: "You marry him; you won't have a pot to piss in." Notice how wonderfully and laughably different in meaning "You won't have a pot to piss in" (= You won't have a pot in which to piss) is from "You won't have to piss in a pot." I trust the difference isn't obvious only to native speakers.

I see the difference completely.

I believe that when FDR famously said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he did NOT mean "The only thing we HAFTA fear is fear itself." Rather, the meaning is that we have something (namely, fear) to fear; we have fear itself to fear. Fear itself is to be feared. We should shun fear.

When you are saying 'he did NOT mean "The only thing we HAFTA fear is fear itself' I assume you intend to express FDR didn't say "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" in a relaxed, casual or conversational tone but that he actually mean it. Do I have this right?

 

[SoothingDave]

No, I believe he is drawing the distinction between "have to" fear, which would mean there is some compulsion; and have "to fear."

(Have to) fear vs have (to fear).

There is only one thing to fear - fear itself.

 

[shootingstar]

No, I believe he is drawing the distinction between "have to" fear, which would mean there is some compulsion; and have "to fear."

(Have to) fear vs have (to fear).

There is only one thing to fear - fear itself.

Yes, I understand this as well, but Annabel Lee is using "HAFTA" in this sentence, and this "HAFTA" sounds like a relaxed, casual or conversational tone, and this tone doesn't fit FDR's speech delivered to Congress in view of the gravity of the situation.

 

[Annabel Lee]

I see the difference completely.

Wonderful.

When you are saying 'he did NOT mean "The only thing we HAFTA fear is fear itself' I assume you intend to express FDR didn't say "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" in a relaxed, casual or conversational tone but that he actually mean it. Do I have this right?

No. Perhaps I should have left that paragraph out. The point I'm making about meaning relates to a somewhat complicated syntactic ambiguity. The noun phrase "the only thing we have to fear" contains a relative clause: "the only thing [which/that] we have to fear." Within the relative clause itself, the "gap" related to the relative pronoun can be in one of two places:

1) the only thing which we have [__] to fear​

2) the only thing which we have to fear [__]​

In other words, within the relative clause, the relative pronoun can be the direct object of either "have" or of "fear" but not of both. If the correct parsing of FDR's sentence involved the (understood/silent) relative pronoun being the object of "fear," then "have to" would be a semi-modal, and would naturally be pronounced "hafta" by native speakers in live speech: "The only thing we hafta fear is fear itself."

However, the meaning would be inconsistent with the context on that parsing. There would be obligational, external-compulsion meaning: "We are obligated only to fear fear itself. [We need not fear anything else.]" That interpretation doesn't make sense, because it presupposes that the audience was already fearing fear itself, whereas they were fearing other things, like hunger, unemployment, etc.

Thus, the sensible parsing is that the (silent/understood) relative pronoun is the object of "have": "The only thing [which] we have [__] to fear is fear itself." That is, we have only one thing to fear: fear itself. We have only fear to fear. We have nothing else to fear. We should be on our guard against fear, because it defeats the taking of constructive action capable of solving problems like hunger and unemployment. Here is his unedited, actual sentence:

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."​

(Hear it spoken HERE, 0:38-1:00. FDR had a somewhat different style of speaking from our present president.)​

Yes, I understand this as well, but Annabel Lee is using "HAFTA" in this sentence, and this "HAFTA" sounds like a relaxed, casual or conversational tone.

Yes, it's casual and conversational, but it's also perfectly normal and respectable. We just don't write it. The same thing happens with most of the other semi-modals: usta (used to), gonna (going to), etc. The phenomenon is known as "infinitive contraction." The reason I personally love the FDR example is that it illustrates that infinitive contraction cannot occur across a "gap": "the only thing we have __ to fear."

FDR simply could not have said hafta there and had the same meaning—as a matter of grammar, not of formality.

 

[jutfrank]

There is a sense of ownership of the thing or action with "have something to do." If a student says, "I have a paper to write this weekend," there is an obligation, but he or she owns it. In contrast, with "have to do something," there is a sense of external compulsion: "I have to write a paper this weekend."

I wonder if you have looked into the history of semi-modal 'have to'. Do you think as I've long suspected that the 'have' part must have had some sense of of possession at some point in time? When you have a duty or obligation to do something, you 'own' it in a sense.

I believe that when FDR famously said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he did NOT mean "The only thing we HAFTA fear is fear itself." Rather, the meaning is that we have something (namely, fear) to fear; we have fear itself to fear. Fear itself is to be feared. We should shun fear.

Great example.

 

[emsr2d2]

The Midnight Library by Matt Haig

You've quoted a lot from this book. I'd have thought you'd be able to spell the title correctly by now!

 

[Annabel Lee]

I wonder if you have looked into the history of semi-modal 'have to'. Do you think as I've long suspected that the 'have' part must have had some sense of of possession at some point in time?

I've dabbled in its history. Long ago I read a diachronic article connecting the two constructions. I'm happy to say I was able to locate it in my file cabinet. I also found a pdf of it online (HERE). It's called "The Origin and Development of Quasimodal Have To in English," by Laurel J. Brinton. I believe I got my example "I have a paper to write" from her article. If memory serves, she studies, among other things, the development of "I have a horse to sell" to "I have to sell a horse." It was not a recent development. One must go all the way back to Middle English. I'm not sure if she observes that the earlier construction still in use ("have NP to VP") involves an infinitival relative clause. As far as I know, I came to that conclusion on my own.

 

[jutfrank]

That's fantastic. Thank you very much, @Annabel Lee —just what I was looking for!