Re: Question about the phrase "I have things to do"

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:58:49 GMT

Hello, Twinkletoes.

No, that's not what I'm saying. "things to do" is the direct object of "have", the main verb of the sentence. "To do" would be a clause (a non-finite one) even if "things" weren't there or if it had some other type of complementation/modification. In this case, inside the clause, "things" is the subject and "to do" is the predicate.

"Have" is the main verb of the sentence; "to do" is the main verb in the subordinate clause "things to do".

I don't know if every single grammarian in the world would analyse the sentence in the same way, but I certainly know of some who do. What I posted before appears in grammar books. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with it, though. Disagreement is often the basis on which new thories are developed.

Anyway, let me give another example of what I said in my first post here:

"She wanted him to call her."

Here, "him to call her" is another to-infinitive clause (with a subject of its own) acting as direct object of the main verb "wanted". "Him" is the subject of the clause (in non-finite clauses, when they have a subject and if that subject is a pronoun, it will be in its "objective" form), "to call" is the main verb of the clause, and "her" the direct object inside the clause.

I'm sorry if that was confusing.

Miriam

Re: For

CalifJim — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:04:47 GMT

"possible", "impossible", and their negations (like many other adjectives) can take a "FOR ... TO ..." clause as subject .

Leave out "on the basic level"; it just specifies what kind of understanding (basic) is meant.

The structure is
"FOR a Russian or French person TO understand his music is not impossible."

where the italicized portion is the subject.

A few inversions take place before the final form is reached, but I think you can see that the FOR-phrase is the subject of a dependent infinitive clause, the TO-phrase is the predicate of the same clause, and all together the non-finite clause (FOR ... TO ...) is the subject of the main clause.

Alternately, the FOR-phrase simply acts as a variant of an IF-clause:

"... not impossible to ... basic level, IF ONE IS a Russian or French person."

If we took a poll, I wouldn't be surprised if the alternative were the more likely interpretation.

Search results for 'tag:Predicates tag:Infinitive clauses' matching tags 'Predicates' and 'Infinitive clauses'

Re: Question about the phrase "I have things to do"

Re: For