Verbal Auxiliary: The mysterious "have"

Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by Tiassa, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    I wrote this sentence in another thread:

    And, yes, it would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, although I'm uncertain about the wisdom of devising such a specific rule at that valence of law.​

    The italic accent on the word "have" reflects a stress in speech; it is so common that the underlying question itself seems awkward insofar as we rarely identify this aspect of the language.

    Think about it for a moment. We actually have a ... well, it's not a neologism anymore, but within the contexts of literary license and childhood there exists the word "hafta".

    And since I'm on the subject, I'll note "gotta" and "got to", as well.

    But what does the verb "have" mean in that sentence, insofar as that is the word in which we so often invest such primacy?

    Looking to Merriam-Webster, we find a workable definition, of course, as a verbal auxiliary:

    2 : to be compelled, obliged, or required —used with an infinitive with to or to alone <we had to go> <do what you have to> <it has to be said>

    But how did this context develop?

    This is just one of those things I go through. Every once in a while, perfectly normal words (usually "Monday" and "cow") sound completely foreign to me. Or I start taking certain words—e.g., "remarkable"°—in a more literal context than most.

    And this is a variation of that literalism. I just don't understand the evolution of the word "have". Or "got". Even worse:

    And, yes, it has got to be a constitutional amendment ....​

    There is something incredibly vague and stupid about the language when it comes to common phrases and vague contexts like these. Which means I'm missing something. But I'm not seeing it. So what am I missing?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° "remarkable" — It's a vague word as many people use it, almost to the point of dysfunction. One might call a bright child "remarkably smart", but that could mean anything from a first grade student who can do long multiplication to his classmate who understands calculus. To the other, an idiotic vanity plate or stupid bumper sticker is also remarkable. Simply by mentioning something, one fulfills the idea that it is remarkable at all. Which, in the end, just isn't that ... uh ... remarkable. You know, as in "impressive".

    Works Cited:

    "have". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster.com. December 1, 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=have&searchmode=none
    (My italics).
    Not exactly illuminating on the point, but...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    It's a start

    ... it's a start.

    Indeed, I probably wouldn't have noticed the issue at all except that I write dialogue. How many times have I italicized the word have? I can't count. But after a while, it occurred to me that I have no idea just what I am stressing when I do so.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Looking at a simpler version of that sentence, "It has to be a constitutional amendment," obviously we wonder why we don't just say, "It must be. . ." But in the sentence as written, with the auxiliary verb putting it in the conditional mode (I suppose, we're a bit fuzzy on modes in English) there is no way to simplify the sentence by falling back on "must." You can't say, "Yes, it would probably must be . . . ." We'd all understand it but it's grammatically incorrect English.

    So "have to" serves at least one purpose uniquely. Once a phrase is established, it takes on a life of its own and ventures into places it was never supposed to go, like a pet parrot.
    It's not unique to English. In Spanish we say, Tú tienes que salir, or more formally, Tú has que salir, "You have to leave," when we could just as easily say Tú debes salir, "You must leave." I think the construction is used in other Romance languages too, but I'll leave that to someone who knows them better. In any case, if the same syntactical anomaly occurs independently in two languages, we have to wonder what synapse in our speech center finds it comfortable.
    Those are just contractions under construction. How do you think we ended up with "I've, she's, won't"? Many words started out as contractions and just continued contracting. "Lady" is Anglo-Saxon hlaf-dig, "the one who kneads the bread," and "lord" is hlaf-wird, "the one who guards the bread."
    I haven't done the research to find out when "have" began to be used that way, and, later, "got." If you're curious, track it down.
    Words lose much of their power over the generations, especially words that start out as powerful colloquialisms. So we feel a need to reinforce them: great-big, little-bitty, goddamn-fucking.
    You're not missing anything. What you're doing is looking too hard, probably looking for something that's not there. Spoken language is very ephemeral, so I'm sure that much of its evolution is the butterfly effect. Somebody said something once--drunk, Spoonerism, attempt at cleverness, tongue twisted, non-native speaker, etc.--and somebody else liked it and repeated it. Most of those are soon forgotten, but then one comes along that a lot of people appreciate, they write it down, and next thing you know it's in the dictionary. It's just chance.
    I always go back to the original meaning if I need help finding my way. "Remarkable" literally means "worth remarking on." If I'm going to remember it and tell somebody about it for amusement, alarm, etc., then it was remarkable.
    Russian still uses that syntax: U myenya yest kniga, "By me is (a) book."
    There's the answer to your first question. Somebody else did the work for us.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page