Any difference between “I have a lot of work to do” and “I have a lot of work to be done”?

Question

What is the difference between “I have a lot of work to do” and “I have a lot of work to be done”?

Does sentence one mean that “I” do the work?

Does sentence two mean that “someone else” does the work?

Answer 1

The difference is that the first sentence clearly states that the speaker has a lot of work which they specifically must do, while the second sentence is not really valid English as it mistakenly conjugates the doing in the passive voice, as if it applies to the work rather than to the agent (I, in this example).

By de-emphasising 'the work', this should be made more clear.

I have (a lot of work) to do

From this we should see that

I have (a lot of work) to be done

makes far less semantic sense, and could possibly imply that there is a lot of work which needs to be done on me, which is highly unlikely to be the intended usage, unless it were to be uttered during a conversation about impending plastic surgery.

There is a lot of work to be done would be far more common usage, and makes it equally ambiguous about who is expected to do the work.

Answer 2

"I have a lot of work to do" would communicate that the speaker is the person who will be doing the work while the second sentence is incorrect as it should communicate that "the work to be done" is more important than the person doing it. In other words, the "I have" in the second sentence "I have a lot of work to be done" should be replaced by "there is".

The correct sentence then in the passive voice should be,

There is a lot of work to be done.

This sentence is used when the object work takes predominance over the subject "I" and the "I" is understood. The first sentence you used communicates that you are responsible for the work to do and the second, in the corrected form is more ambiguous because it could mean that someone else could do the work and not necessarily you.

Answer 3

In English, both historically and in the present day, the combination 'have' + 'to do' has a meaning that relates to something that hasn't happened yet, but is to come. At the same time, it also conveys the sense of obligation on the part of the speaker to do something in some future time (usually, but not necessarily, something imminent).

On the other hand, the expression 'to be done', even without the first verb 'have', focuses on the idea of an event as an accomplished or achieved whole - totally done and dusted (hence termed the perfect aspect), and not on the imminence of, or obligation to, an event that has not yet taken place. In addition, it is in the passive, which means the actual 'doer' of the accomplishment may be left unspecified.

This is the main reason combining 'have' + 'to be done' feels somewhat weird in this type of construction. You're combining meanings in a non-logical way - both aspectual ideas of 'not yet happened' and 'already complete' cause a meaning clash since reality doesn't operate quite that way.

The weirdness is solved by using other less confusing expressions to convey the idea that there is both an obligation and that the event be an accomplished result. So instead of 'to be done', you use the causative 'get' passive: 'to get done.'

Answer 4

Both these wordings can also be perceived in the context that the individual is simply not interested in applying their time to anything else even if the context and ramifications outweigh their own minor works at hand?