2

a. The referee made us lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored.

b. The referee had us lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored.

c. The referee got us to lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored.

The idea is that the referee caused us to lose, but not by compelling us. 'Make', 'get to' and 'have' can all be used to show cause. But I think there are subtle differences between them. I am trying to figure out those difference. In what way are the three sentences different?

Many thanks

7
  • 2
    Am I right that you're asking about the apparently different function of causative "make" compared with causative "have" and "get"? If that's the case -- and you're not just asking for error correction -- mind rephrasing your question to make that clear? somebody reading this could reasonably think that an answer like, "Only sentence (a) is correct" is sufficient.
    – gotube
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 5:17
  • 3
    I wouldn't use any of these. I think they're unnatural. It would be more natural to say "We lost the match because the referee disallowed two of the goals we scored". The idea of the referee compelling a team to lose doesn't make much sense because a referee is a person who makes decisions about who wins. A team has no choice in the matter.
    – Billy Kerr
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 7:09
  • 2
    Arguably 'you' (the team) made yourselves lose the match because you scored two false goals and the referee noticed and applied the rules. Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 9:03
  • 2
    Example (a) isn't accurate in terms of the meaning of "made us lose", but in my opinion it's absolutely the sort of thing a sports fan would say because they exaggerate and try to blame everything on others. "had us lose" sounds a bit literary/formal, and "got us to lose" seems wrong (I think it implies persuasion or manipulation).
    – Stuart F
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 9:26
  • 1
    @azz - would you say that a judge 'made' a person go to prison, or the person themselves did that by murdering someone? Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 13:24

1 Answer 1

2

The first of OP's examples...

1: The referee made us lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored

...will occasionally be used by some speakers seeking to avoid the relatively "starchy" phrasing of, say,...

2: The referee caused us to lose the match by disallowing two of the goals we scored

But as commented, the vast majority of native speakers wouldn't present the assertion with the referee as the subject. They'd say something like...

3: We lost the match because the referee disallowed two of the goals we scored


The reason most people don't like #1 above is because that construction is often used in contexts implying that the referee deliberately acted in order to cause speaker's team to lose. And the main reason some speakers use it is precisely because they think the referee was biased, and actively favoured their opponents.

OP's second version is very unlikely, because it always implies the referee acted in line with a prearranged plan, and usually implies "cooperation" as per the third version.

The third version would never occur, because it implies the referee "persuaded" the speaker's team to go along with his plan, which makes no sense.

2
  • Thank you very much FumbleFingers. I have to apologize for the fact that my question was unclear. I did mean that the referee wanted us to lose and deliberately disallowed two valid goals to make us lose. That was the intended meaning. I just imagined a fan talking about their loss, and thought that would be what they'll think and say. Now, they might be wrong, but some sports fans are not objective when it comes to their team. Thanks again for the reply.
    – azz
    Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 21:55
  • @FumbleFingers Hi! I upvoted your good answer! I wrote 2 comments in a previous question. I wait your reply. Commented Oct 25, 2023 at 8:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .