0

I would like to know if the expression below is wrong, and if then, why it is.

Wow, the time is up. It is time for you to have to go.

I know the sentence below can be much simpler than that, but I think the absence of have to in the sentence below makes it sound not as important as the above one.

Wow, the time is up. It is time for you to go.

Thank you very much for your help. Any explanation will be helpful and appreciated.

1

I can construct some artificial scenarios where "have to" would be necessary, but its meaning is so close to completely superfluous that intuition kicks in and makes the words seem redundant, making the sentence seem incorrect. You'd need a very strong context to make it clear, at the semantic level, that "have to" is really necessary, and still it would sound awkward. Simply used for emphasis, it just sounds wrong (because it's redundant).

  • Thank you for the detailed explanation. I appreciate it. Despite that the expression would sound awkward and redundant so using the expression in actual life would be wrong, but, in grammar's terms, there's nothing wrong with it, isn't there?(wow, this is confusing because of nothing, should I use is there here? Sorry for another question.) – Smart Humanism Apr 4 at 17:53
  • 1
    No, it's not technically wrong, there could be a specific time at which you now had an obligation to go. But it's not a grammatical construction ("have to go" just means you are obliged to go) and in terms of semantics, well, I just don't see it (no clear connection between time and obligation). --- Correct: "there's nothing wrong with it, is there?" – sesquipedalias Apr 4 at 21:05
  • Thank you for answering more, sesquipedalias. It's very helpful to me. But I would like to check this, you said that it's not technically wrong but you also said it's not a grammatical construction. So the two opposite statements at the same time are hard for me to understand. I think grammar is the area which is technical. – Smart Humanism Apr 5 at 5:01
  • 1
    You are right, I was vague, sorry. I just meant "have" is not an auxiliary verb here. "I have gone" is just a tense, it has nothing to do with obligation. But in "I have to go to school", "have" expresses the obligation, rather than forming a tense. – sesquipedalias Apr 5 at 9:26
  • Thank you for the clarification and your consecutive helps. :) But may I ask you one more thing lastly, can we say that it sounds redundant and superfluous because the to-infinitive structure in It is time for you to go itself can have a subtle meaning of a need or a week obligation? I am sorry to ask you too much. – Smart Humanism Apr 5 at 18:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.