http://www.englishforums.com/English/EslGeneralEnglishGrammar-Questions/Forum12.htmAsk your questions on grammar and get your sentence checked. We answer lots of different types of general English grammar questions here.enXMOD (Build: 3598.39794)http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21689Fri, 08 May 2009 15:22:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21689Pemmican0http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21689http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-21689.xml>> From Pem's point of view, if ' go ' is the verb, then ' have to ' is an auxilliary verb but it is not mentioned as such in any grammar book. That's why it baffles me :P That's what I wanted to say - "have to" here is the substitute form for the auxiliary "must", it expresses necessity for the following full verb as well as must would do. It's the same as if you would use "to be able to" instead of "can".http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21686Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:22:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21686whl6261http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21686http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-21686.xmlJust because ' have ' and ' to ' are always stuck together. So to say that ' have ' is the verb and ' to go now ' is the ' noun phrase ' means we break up the ' have ' and ' to ' for analysis. ? From Pem's point of view, if ' go ' is the verb, then ' have to ' is an auxilliary verb but it is not mentioned as such in any grammar book. That's why it baffles me :Phttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21641Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:22:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21641rommie2http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21641http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-21641.xmlIt's a matter of doing things in the right order. The noun phrase in "I have to go now" is "to go now", not merely "to go". Basically, "now" is an adverb, which modifies the verb "to go", and THEN, after having been so modified, the whole lot gets converted to single a noun phrase. Rommiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21640Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:22:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21640Pemmican3http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htm#21640http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-21640.xmlJust change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze: "go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to! I have to go: "have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive. "Have to" here is a fixed expression, and therefore "to" is actually part of the following infinitive form of the full verb, not a preposition. If it was a preposition, usually a Gerund would have to follow (as eg. in "I look forward to seeing you). To complete the analysis: "I" is the subject of the sentence, it's a personal pronoun. "have to go" is the predicate of the sentence which includes the inflected present tense form of "have" and the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htmThu, 08 Jan 2009 16:22:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:21626whl6264http://www.englishforums.com/English/IHaveToGoNow/vgxc/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-21626.xmlThis problem has been lingering in my mind for years. How to analyse it ? have = verb ? ( if have is verb, then ' to go ' is noun phrase and ' now ' is adverb ) ? If this is the case, then ' now' as an adverb can't modify a ' noun phrase ' but modify the have :p . That analysis is a little awkward then What do you think ? have to = auxiliary and go is the verb ?