Hi, All!

-------------------
...
He meant for us to dig. I'll have Joe fetch a shovel as soon as we
(come to him)."
...
"Well, that was easy," said Kate, putting the letter away inside her
bucket. "Now all we have to do is get there!"
-------------------

If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a shovel" and "Now
all we have to do is _to_ get there!"

Why do those Infinitives are without "to"?

Bye, All!
Alexander Koryagin
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to All:

-------------------

He meant for us to dig. I'll have Joe fetch a shovel

as soon as we (come to him)."

...

"Well, that was easy," said Kate, putting the letter
away inside her bucket. "Now all we have to do is get
there!"

-------------------

If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a
shovel" and "Now all we have to do is _to_ get there!"

Why do those Infinitives are without "to"?

In formal English, the preposition is generally included where it may not always be in colloquial speech. What I see here is a private conversation (i.e. you may notice turns of phrase Miss Stickler didn't accept). That's the easy explanation for the last sentence... the other is more complex. Although it struck me as "not English" with the added preposition, I wasn't really sure why until after wading through multiple definitions of the verb "to have". It seems that if "have" means a third party will be asked &/or required to do the job the preposition is omitted, as in the first sentence you asked about. :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 30.03.2023 21:52

ak>> Why do those Infinitives are without "to"?
AH> In formal English, the preposition is generally
AH> included where it may not always be in colloquial speech. What
AH> I see here is a private conversation (i.e. you may notice turns of
AH> phrase Miss Stickler didn't accept). That's the easy explanation for
AH> the last sentence... the other is more complex. Although it struck me
AH> as "not English" with the added preposition, I wasn't really sure why
AH> until after wading through multiple definitions of the verb "to
have".
AH> It seems that if "have" means a third party will be asked &/or
AH> required to do the job the preposition is omitted, as in the first
AH> sentence you asked about. :-)

Ok.
BTW, you called those "to"s as "propositions". But prepositions are put
before nouns? For instance, in English textbook in Russia we call those
"to"s as particles.

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor 2023
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

In formal English, the preposition is generally
included where it may not always be in colloquial
speech. What I see here is a private conversation
(i.e. you may notice turns of phrase Miss Stickler
didn't accept). That's the easy explanation for
the last sentence

Alternatively, "to" is a "function word". In the common parlance it may be left out when the speaker decides it adds nothing worth adding.... :-Q

... the other is more complex. Although it struck
me as "not English" with the added preposition, I
wasn't really sure why until after wading through
multiple definitions of the verb "to have". It
seems that if "have" means a third party will be
asked &/or required to do the job the preposition is
omitted, as in the first sentence you asked about.

Ok.
BTW, you called those "to"s as "propositions". But
prepositions are put before nouns? For instance, in
English textbook in Russia we call those "to"s as
particles.

I found one source which identified them as "infinitive particles", which makes sense to me, but I avoid the use of "particle" for two reasons:

1) From my POV there's general agreement as to the eight parts of speech
I learned about in my youth. I know I can count on the dictionary in
almost any European language to employ the same terminology even if I
don't understand their idea of gender. And until you & Anton started
asking more advanced questions the Russians seemed content... [grin].

2) During the 1960's various linguists objected to the old rules & tried
to make improvements... one of which I suspect may be the addition of
the word "particle" in this context. Not all dictionaries include it
because it's not universally accepted & if you find it at all you may
find little or no general agreement as to what it means. At least if
e.g. somebody adds articles to the parts of speech I get the picture,
because I already know the term "article" as a subset of "adjective".


I am reluctant to add unnecessary complexities here. My goal is to communicate with you as well as an indeterminate number of other people. :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Ardith Hinton:

1) From my POV there's general agreement as to the eight parts of speech
I learned about in my youth. I know I can count on the dictionary in
almost any European language to employ the same terminology even if I
don't understand their idea of gender. And until you & Anton started
asking more advanced questions the Russians seemed content... [grin].

2) During the 1960's various linguists objected to the old rules & tried
to make improvements... one of which I suspect may be the addition of
the word "particle" in this context. Not all dictionaries include it
because it's not universally accepted & if you find it at all you may
find little or no general agreement as to what it means. At least if
e.g. somebody adds articles to the parts of speech I get the picture,
because I already know the term "article" as a subset of "adjective".

Is possible -- two perfect bricks!

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

alexander koryagin:

I'll have Joe fetch a shovel
Now all we have to do is get there!

If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a shovel"
and "Now all we have to do is _to_ get there!"

Do you entertain similar misgivings about `let', as in "Let
me fetch the shovel"; or about "make", as in "I will make
you regret it"; or about `have' but with passive voice, e.g.
"I will have my hair cut"; or when there is no a verb at
all, as in the Huey "piano" Smith song -- "We will have him
on the alimony"?

The Authorised version of The Bible has both variants in the
same sentece:

He made him /ride/ on the high places of the earth, that
he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him
/to suck/ honey out of the rock, and oil out of the
flinty rock.

The second sentence is different, and `to' is optional in it
because "get there" is parallel to "do", and the second `to'
may be implied, as it is in:

He is the author of "The Camera" and (of) "The Negative".

On the other hand, The Grammar of English Grammars has this
example:

I would willingly have him /producing/ [/produce/, or /to
produce/] his credentials.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Anton Shepelev!
I read your message from 30.09.2023 00:35

I'll have Joe fetch a shovel Now all we have to do is get there!

If I were they :) I'd write "I'll have Joe _to_ fetch a shovel"
and "Now all we have to do is _to_ get there!"

Do you entertain similar misgivings about `let', as in "Let me
fetch the shovel"; or about "make", as in "I will make you regret
it"; or about `have' but with passive voice, e.g. "I will have my
hair cut"; or when there is no a verb at all, as in the
Huey "piano" Smith song -- "We will have him on the alimony"?

A verb after "make" is used without "to" -- it is a completely different case and rule. As for "have" you gave wrong examples without verbs after "have".

< "I will have my hair cut" >

"Cut" is not a verb.

Bye, Anton!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor,local.cc.ak 2023

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Alexander Koryagin:

< "I will have my hair cut" >

"Cut" is not a verb.

I am sure it is:

I will have him repair my car.
I will have my car repaired.

`repair' is certainly a verb in both cases. You may call it
a past participal in the second instance, because it
partakes of the verb, or, is partially a verb. Analyse the
present-tense example, if you like it more: "I will have her
cut my hair," where `cut' is a verb beyond the faintest
shadow of a doubt.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Anton Shepelev! -> Alexander Koryagin
I read your message from 05.10.2023 20:17

"I will have my hair cut" >
"Cut" is not a verb.

I am sure it is:
I will have him repair my car. (1)

"Repair" is a verb, and you use the direct object here. And therefore you had to use "to" before the verb. Another example:

"He asked me to wait a little".

I will have my car repaired. (2)

`repair' is certainly a verb in both cases. You may call it a past participal in the second instance,

And indeed is is a past particiPLE. ;)

because it partakes of the verb, or, is partially a verb.

I don't understand your logic here.

Analyse the present-tense example, if you
like it more: "I will have her cut my hair," where `cut' is a verb
beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt.

What does Dallas think about your "beyond faintest shadow of a doubt"?

Bye, Anton!
Alexander Koryagin
english_tutor 2023

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Alexander Koryagin:

I will have him repair my car. (1)

"Repair" is a verb, and you use the direct object here.
And therefore you had to use "to" before the verb.

No, I hand't. This usage needs the bare infinitive.

"He asked me to wait a little".

You ask someome to do something, but you have someone do it.
There is a qulitative difference between /ask/ and /have/.

You may call it a past participal in the second
instance, because it partakes of the verb, or, is
partially a verb.

I don't understand your logic here.

Have you wondered why it is called participle? What
definition of participle do you use? Here is the one I use,
by Goold Brown --

A Participle is a word derived from a verb,
participating the properties of a verb, and of an
adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding
/ing/, /d/, or /ed/, to the verb: thus, from the verb
rule, are formed three participles, two simple and one
compound; as, 1. /ruling/, 2. /ruled/, 3. /having
ruled/.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

At least if e.g. somebody adds articles to the parts
of speech I get the picture, because I already know
the term "article" as a subset of "adjective".

Is possible -- two perfect bricks!

Two bats with one brick? I take that as a compliment.... :-))




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Ardith Hinton to Anton Shepelev:

Is [it] possible -- two perfect bricks!

Two bats with one brick? I take that as a
compliment.... :-))

Brick text is a colloquial term for a paragraph written in
monospace font that is perfectly right-adjusted without
additional whitespace. In your article from 2023-04-04
23:52 you wrote two of them:

1) From my POV there's general agreement as to the eight parts of speech
I learned about in my youth. I know I can count on the dictionary in
almost any European language to employ the same terminology even if I
don't understand their idea of gender. And until you & Anton started
asking more advanced questions the Russians seemed content... [grin].

2) During the 1960's various linguists objected to the old rules & tried
to make improvements... one of which I suspect may be the addition of
the word "particle" in this context. Not all dictionaries include it
because it's not universally accepted & if you find it at all you may
find little or no general agreement as to what it means. At least if
e.g. somebody adds articles to the parts of speech I get the picture,
because I already know the term "article" as a subset of "adjective".

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:13:58, Anton Shepelev <0@6.221.2> wrote:

Brick text is a colloquial term for a paragraph written in
monospace font that is perfectly right-adjusted without
additional whitespace. In your article from 2023-04-04
23:52 you wrote two of them:

Well, there are doubled spaces between sentences. But, yes -- not
tripled or quadrupled or too wide stretches between words, like you'd
expect in MS Word and such. And the bricks appear so neatly packed it's
almost unreal. :-)

--- FastEcho/2 1.46.1 Revival
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/1.0)

Gleb Hlebov to Anton Shepelev:

Brick text is a colloquial term for a paragraph written
in monospace font that is perfectly right-adjusted
without additional whitespace. In your article from
2023-04-04 23:52 you wrote two of them:

Well, there are doubled spaces between sentences.

This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in typewriting
and in the better typographical books. If you will remember
the book on witchcraft in Suspiria, it has sentence spacing,
too.

But, yes -- not tripled or quadrupled or too wide
stretches between words, like you'd expect in MS Word
and such. And the bricks appear so neatly packed it's
almost unreal. :-)

Must be harder than verse.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

I wrote:

This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in
typewriting and in the better typographical books.

Remove the article.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello, Anton!

Anton Shepelev (2:221/6) wrote to you:

This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in
typewriting and in the better typographical books.

Remove the article.

My brain filtered it out when I first read the message.
But nonetheless, it have become history. :-)

P.S. do you have any issues quote-replying my msgs? Like occasional disappearing or duplicating of characters?


--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5
* Origin: Type <sadm> to continue (2:5023/24.4222)

Hello, Anton!

Anton Shepelev (2:221/6) wrote to me:

Well, there are doubled spaces between sentences.

This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in typewriting
and in the better typographical books. If you will remember
the book on witchcraft in Suspiria, it has sentence spacing,
too.

Which one do you have in mind? I rewatched the original 1977 movie a couple of months ago, but unsurprisingly, I took no notice of such detail and could've missed if there were any brief close-ups of a book. Because I was so much stunned by its coloring and cinematography. :-)
If you're speaking of the remake, I have yet to watch it.

========
Is the Suspiria remake worth watching?
Dense and thematically rich, Luca Guadagnino's Suspiria is the rare remake that surpasses the original. | Rating: 4.5/5

(rottentomatoes.com)
========

Sounds good so far.


--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5
* Origin: Type <sadm> to continue (2:5023/24.4222)

Gleb Hlebov to Anton Shepelev:

This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in
typewriting and in the better typographical books. If
you will remember the book on witchcraft in Suspiria,
it has sentence spacing, too.

Which one do you have in mind? I rewatched the original
1977 movie a couple of months ago, but unsurprisingly, I
took no notice of such detail and could've missed if
there were any brief close-ups of a book. Because I was
so much stunned by its coloring and cinematography. :-)

Yes, I meant the original Suspiria, and wathed it from
Bluray on via my projector. Increased sentence spacing is
used in many good old books, and I think it was especially
prominent before 1940s.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Gleb Hlebov:

P.S. do you have any issues quote-replying my msgs?
Like occasional disappearing or duplicating of
characters?

I haven noticed any. If there are any issues, we shall see
them in my posts.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hello, Anton!

Recently, Anton Shepelev (2:221/6) wrote to me:

This is sentence spacing -- traditionlly used in
typewriting and in the better typographical books.

Which one do you have in mind? I rewatched the original
1977 movie a couple of months ago

Yes, I meant the original Suspiria, and wathed it from
Bluray on via my projector. Increased sentence spacing is
used in many good old books, and I think it was especially
prominent before 1940s.

It's funny that you too use the trick. Although I don't think it makes
a lot of sense with electronic messaging as long as your paragraphs not
fully aligned.

I guess it's about time for me to watch the movie over again. It's one
of those unspeakable magic things that only good cinema can evoke,
despite ridiculously wooden acting (at times) and tons of thick red
gouache (or whatever they used for gore scenes). :-)


--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5
* Origin: Type <sadm> to continue (2:5023/24.4222)

Hi, Anton Shepelev! -> Gleb Hlebov
I read your message from 28.11.2023 09:54

P.S. do yu have any issuees quote-replying my msgs?
Like occaional disappeariing or duplicatingoof
characters?

I haven noiced any. If thhere are any issues, we shall see
them in my posts.

Your quotes have a minor difference from mine - they have not a space before quoted paragraphs. Somebody told me such a space should be.

Bye, Anton!
Alexander Koryagin
english_tutor 2023

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)