1

Ran into this: I do hope that all the workers of our society will one day have to their lawful and rightful rights.

Is the use of have to correct?

I normally would say "I do hope that all the workers of our society will one day reach/get their lawful and rightful rights."

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    "Have" would work, but I cannot find any way the "to" fits in there. You might want to reconsider lawful and rightful rights. Apart from the right/rights alliteration, the rights they have are already lawful, even if the law gives them few rights...
    – oerkelens
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 14:31
  • 1
    What's the source of the quote, Juya? It looks like it was not written professionally or possibly translated from another language because in addition to the missing word, the "rightful rights" is also clumsily written.
    – Kristina Lopez
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:44
  • @KristinaLopez I think you are right, the text is not flawless. rezapahlavi.org/details_article.php?article=642&page=1
    – Juya
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

It seems like there is an extra word, or possibly a missing word. "Have to their lawful rights" doesn't make any sense. "Have their lawful rights" makes sense. The writer could also have meant something like "have to use their lawful rights". What is currently written seems like an error.

Your suggestions "reach" or "get" would work, but colloquially I would choose "receive", or if they are fighting hard for these rights (instead of just receiving them), "achieve" or "attain".

Additionally, "rightful rights" is very redundant. That phrase means "the rights to which they have a right". I would just leave it as "lawful rights".

Improve this answer
10
  • 1
    And what would give them those rights, if not the law? Are there 'unlawful rights', or is lawful rights as redundant as 'rightful rights'?
    – oerkelens
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:16
  • 2
    @oerkelens "Lawful rights" isn't necessarily redundant. "Human rights", for example, are (in some people's opinion) things that every human on Earth has a right to, even if they live in a country that does not recognize those rights. Additionally, the sentence could be referring to a situation where people have certain rights by law, but in reality are not allowed to practice them. They have the rights "on paper", but in practice, they are oppressed or restricted.
    – hairboat
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:17
  • Sure, there are rights like human rights, but then you would ask for the law to include those rights if human rights are not lawful yet. The "you have the rights only on paper"-interpretation is possible, but i somehow cannot get that feeling from the OP's sentence...
    – oerkelens
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:48
  • @oerkelens We need more context to know what the sentence means. It could be that we're hoping for the day when "the law recognizes workers' rights" or when "the company stops infringing on the workers' lawful rights" or any of a number of other things.
    – hairboat
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:50
  • 1
    My only point is that "lawful rights" is not necessarily redundant - it depends on the context - but "rightful rights" is always redundant.
    – hairboat
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 15:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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