Timeline for Have vs. get in the causative
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 31, 2018 at 9:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/1057557901722730496 | ||
| Oct 31, 2018 at 7:43 | answer | added | siraj Baloch | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 0:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jul 16, 2016 at 23:04 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 22:14 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| May 17, 2016 at 21:38 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 17, 2016 at 21:45 | comment | added | Colin Fine | I'll note that "I'll have him do it for me." to my ears is American. I would not use it myself with a specific agent, though I might with an unspecific one: "I'll have them deliver a shed". | |
| Apr 17, 2016 at 21:43 | comment | added | Colin Fine | @Claytonian: like most "why" questions in language, the only answer is "because that's the way it is". Sorry. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 21:24 | answer | added | Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 1:15 | history | edited | macraf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Dec 22, 2015 at 0:11 | history | edited | michael_timofeev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2015 at 16:01 | comment | added | John Lawler | Get has a special relationship with have, in virtually all of its uses. It's the causative/inchoative of both have and be. Given how many idiomatic constructions have appears in,, it's no wonder that get is a busy verb. | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 13:38 | comment | added | Some_Guy | In causative (causative verb + person/thing + action verb); make (as in force), let (as in allow) and have (as above) take bare infinitives. All other verbs (e.g. ask, allow, force, require, etc. etc.) take the usual full infinitive. This isn't an answer "why" as such, but that's the way it works... | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 12:21 | comment | added | Claytonian | So if I could ask for more info, I'm wondering if anyone knows why have requires an infinitive without "to" but get requires the to on its following infinitive. | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 11:23 | comment | added | Hot Licks | "Have" gives one a very slight hint that this involves a simple request, while "get" suggests some modest persuasion may be required. But the difference is minimal -- as much a matter of "tone" and "stiffness", as "get" is a bit more colloquial. | |
| Oct 25, 2015 at 11:18 | history | asked | Some_Guy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |