2

What does the following sentence means? "have to" is succeeded by a non-verb group. Is that correct?

The access smartphones have to vast amounts of information poses some drawbacks.

  • They have access to information... (vast amounts of it) – Octopus Jul 31 '15 at 21:03
9

Have to is an accidental collocation, not the verbal idiom = must.

Parse it like this:

The access [which] smartphones have . . .

What kind of access?

access to vast amounts of information

That is, smartphones have access to vast amounts of information.

  • Actually it would be "that", not "which". – Lightness Races with Monica Jul 31 '15 at 22:54
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Nope. Relative that is used only with restrictive clauses, but wh- words may be used with both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. – StoneyB on hiatus Jul 31 '15 at 23:14
  • o.O never heard that before. "Which" is only used with non-restrictive clauses in my country. That's England, by the way. :) – Lightness Races with Monica Jul 31 '15 at 23:15
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit I think not. A lot of style manuals adopted as a "rule" the Fowlers' 1906 suggestion that the two relatives be distinguished by use, and spoken English (when it employs a relativizer at all) tends to prefer that in all contexts. In consequence, restrictive which has been increasing steadily for 50 years in writing, passing which around 1990; but the "rule" was never widely accepted, and is ignored or scorned by modern linguistics-based grammars. Restrictive which is still very much alive on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly in less colloquial registers. – StoneyB on hiatus Jul 31 '15 at 23:54
  • Alright good for you then – Lightness Races with Monica Aug 1 '15 at 0:57
3

This is a poorly worded sentence, but what this sentence means is this:

The sentence is talking about access. The simplest form of the sentence is this:

Access poses drawbacks.

Adding some additional words, we'd get:

(The) access poses (some) drawbacks.

Then we just add some additional words to describe the access:

(The) access [smartphones have] poses (some) drawbacks.

Finally, the writer throws in a prepositional phrase to further describe the access which the smartphones have:

(The) access [smartphones have] {to vast amounts of information} poses (some) drawbacks.

Hope this helps.

  • 1
    I wouldn't say it's poorly worded, just that it has some potentially confusing aspects. – Nathan Tuggy Jul 31 '15 at 20:28
  • 1
    That's fair. A sentence that has potentially confusing aspects was always described by my mother (an English teacher) as "poorly worded." I apologize for bringing my baggage to the table! – Scott Dart Jul 31 '15 at 20:30
  • I think it mostly depends on the extent of the possible confusion and the context; almost any poetry, for example, might confuse most learners, but that doesn't mean it's badly worded, just that it's very sophisticated. And a research paper's dense English isn't necessarily much of a problem either. – Nathan Tuggy Jul 31 '15 at 20:38
  • The main confusion is from leaving out the "that", as in "the access that smartphones have". – BobRodes Jul 31 '15 at 21:28
  • 1
    Apart from everything else, the singular "poses" after two plurals "smartphones" and "amounts" is a bit of a shock, even though it's grammatically correct. – alephzero Aug 1 '15 at 0:45

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.