English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

He has to do it. Hasn't he (to)?

Is the 'to' correct/ incorrect/ unnecessary?

Is that a case of an infinitive in interrogative tail (question tag)?

share|improve this question
You've got to be kidding, don't you to? – RiMMER Sep 9 '12 at 7:36
dont you would be more than enough. – Noah Sep 9 '12 at 8:55
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Have to is an idiom, a paraphrase of the modal auxiliary verb must; it's always pronounced /'hæftə/ (/'hæstə/ in 3SgPres -- always /f/ instead of /v/ and /s/ instead of /z/), and it can't be split up.

Modal paraphrase idioms like hafta, wanna, gotta, etc. are written with to in formal spelling, but that's just a marker for the infinitive that has to follow hasta, and it also has to be all in one unit. You can't say, for instance,

  • *Last night I had three times to get up and go to the bathroom.

instead of

  • Last night I had to get up and go to the bathroom three times.

because it splits up had and to. You can't even contract a negative with it

  • *She hasn't to go to work today; it's a holiday.

is ungrammatical, while

  • She doesn't have to go to work today; it's a holiday.

with Do-Support, is grammatical.

That's why it doesn't form a normal tag question; the tag requires a contracted negative, and that's ungrammatical. Instead, as Rory, Kris, and Noah all suggest, using do/does/did of Do-Support is the correct solution.

share|improve this answer
+1 interesting! I didn't know that these were unitary lexemes, but it makes so much sense now that I do. – SevenSidedDie Sep 9 '12 at 15:56
Here's the link to your summary of /haeft@/ vs /haevtu/ - which is how I knew who you were a few months before you signed up to ELU, because PLL included the link in his answer to my earlier question about that difference. – FumbleFingers Sep 9 '12 at 17:19
Thanks again, FF. I've explained it so many times in so many places that I forget where they are. – John Lawler Sep 9 '12 at 17:26
It's the fact that you don't even bother to deal with the word "have" in isolation that fascinates me. Obviously you're right in that it's just a component of "hafta", which in speech we all treat as a "single unit". Presumably because I normally either write words or speak them (but not both at the same time), I don't automatically recognise that "collapsed into a single unit" at the conscious level. But my Wernicke's area (or Broca's area, or whatever) always gets excited when you tell me something it "knows", that "I" don't! – FumbleFingers Sep 10 '12 at 0:25
Literacy is simply technology for transcribing speech. It misses a lot, but if you're a fluent reader, you're using your speech centres when you read. That's why poetry works, even in writing; and why poetry meant to be spoken (e.g, song lyrics) is so different from poetry meant to be read. – John Lawler Sep 10 '12 at 3:26

In this instance you would not need that final 'to' - it would be far too cumbersome.

Or even better:

He has to do it, doesn't he?

as that final part translates as... doesn't he have to?

share|improve this answer
Yes, ", doesn't he?" is the usual and more elegant way, though it isn't possible to explain grammatically as it is. – Kris Sep 9 '12 at 10:28
Yes. "Hasn't he?" would more often appear as a reply-of-surprise to the news that someone hasn't done something they were supposed to. "He hasn't brought in the horses." "Hasn't he? That little layabout!" – SevenSidedDie Sep 9 '12 at 15:54
This is a use of the non-idiomatic auxiliary verbs have and has (pronounced /hæv/ and /hæz/) of the Perfect construction, and that's the regular situation. The idiom is different. – John Lawler Sep 9 '12 at 17:18

In OP's specific context, "has" would normally be pronounced "hass", as per this earlier question.

To my ear, "He hass to do it" followed by ", hasn't he?" is "disjunctive", because the first instance of the word is both vocally stressed and pronounced differently to the shortened second occurrence.

In light of the above, I might be tempted to recast OP's version to "He has to do it, has he not?". But in reality, I'd probably say "He has to do it, doesn't he?" - or more likely, I just wouldn't append that slightly awkward question tag anyway. But in no circumstances would I (or any other native speaker, I suspect) echo the word "to" in the tag.

share|improve this answer
You mean that /hæz/ devoices to /hæs/. Saying has and hass is meaningless. – tchrist Sep 9 '12 at 16:23
@tchrist: I don't see how my failing to use the technical term "devoice" makes any of my text "meaningless". Even I (just about) know the term - but obviously John Lawler would be intimately familiar with it, and he's certainly not averse to using much rarer terminology. But even he didn't feel it necessary to use the word in his answer above. – FumbleFingers Sep 9 '12 at 16:39
You miss the point: yoor yoozing cylli speekNspelle, instead of IPA, as John did. SpeekNSpelle iz yooceliss. – tchrist Sep 9 '12 at 16:45
@tchrist: Of course it's not "useless" - it just irritates you, is all. In this specific case, everyone will understand what difference in pronunciation I'm referring to when I write has | hass, but there will certainly be some people who wouldn't get it (or at least, not so easily) if I'd written /hæz/ | /hæs/ – FumbleFingers Sep 9 '12 at 16:56

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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