# Have someone do something



## NewdestinyX

I'm sorry if this has been covered before - but it occurs to me how common it is in English, when you're giving an indirect order, to say sentences like:

(Please) Have John call me later.
(Please) Have her send a letter to him tomorrow.

My guess is that Spanish has no real exact counterpart to such a use as "have" there. Agreed?

And if not - what is the most common and natural way these sentences are said in Spanish? I'm sure the 'subjunctive' is used.

Thanks in advance for your help,
Grant


----------



## vivo4chorizo

Hi Grant,

We should get some feedback from native speakers before putting this one to rest. I am equally intrigued by your question. Here are a few options that sound natural to me. I work (and play  ) with Latinos day in and day out, and I hear these often:

*Encárgate de la entrega el martes:* *Take care of the Tuesday delivery.*  [A direct, informal command.]

*Digále a John que me llame después. * *Tell John to call me later.* [A direct, formal command in which you command someone else indirectly. (Did that make sense? lol) ].

My question is, can we use some conjugation of "encargarse" to make an indirect order...


----------



## Agró

Haz que/Encárgate de que/Ocúpate de que John me llame más tarde.


----------



## Lurrezko

*Encargarse* me suena bien, y también *hacer*:

_Haz que John me llame luego.
Encárgate de que John me llame luego.

_*Decir* también funciona, pero no connota un compromiso tan fuerte.

Saludos

Edit: _Ocúpate de que_, como dice Agró, también funciona de maravilla.


----------



## donbill

NewdestinyX said:


> I'm sorry if this has been covered before - but it occurs to me how common it is in English, when you're giving an indirect order, to say sentences like:
> 
> (Please) Have John call me later.
> (Please) Have her send a letter to him tomorrow.
> 
> My guess is that Spanish has no real exact counterpart to such a use as "have" there. Agreed?
> 
> And if not - what is the most common and natural way these sentences are said in Spanish? I'm sure the 'subjunctive' is used.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Grant



Que me llame más tarde / luego Juan.
Que le mande ella la carta mañana.


----------



## NewdestinyX

donbill said:


> Que me llame más tarde / luego Juan.
> Que le mande ella la carta mañana.


The 'que' + third person singular subjunctive isn't really the equivalent of 'have him do this or that' . It's more '*let him* do this or that' from my study of the spanish imperatives.

Que + 3rd person sing subj = 3rd person imperative = Let him/her do x/y/z

I think the 'encargarse de que + subj' is the closest to English's 'have him/her do x/y/z.'. Even 'haz que' sounds "more direct" than 'have' is in English.

Thanks everyone for your help!


----------



## blasita

Agró said:


> Haz que/Encárgate de que/Ocúpate de que



I agree that these verbs would work in general (quite a literal translation).

From the above-mentioned verbs, 'hacer que alguien haga algo' sounds a bit stronger than the other two (and I don't use it much). As to the most common and natural, I think it may depend on the context (as usual); I use 'asegurarse' (_asegúrate de que ..._), as well as e.g. 'decir'. 

Some personal comments. Saludos.


----------



## applepi

Además de los verbos ya utilizados, "encárgate, ocúpate", etc. en España se utiliza mucho el "dile"

(Please) Have John call me later = (Por favor) Dile a John que me llame luego / después
(Please) Have her send a letter to him tomorrow = (Por favor) Dile (a ella) que le mande (a él) una carta mañana.

Creo que lo utilizamos como una manera más indirecta de dar la orden.


----------



## donbill

NewdestinyX said:


> The 'que' + third person singular subjunctive isn't really the equivalent of 'have him do this or that' . It's more '*let him* do this or that' from my study of the spanish imperatives.
> 
> Que + 3rd person sing subj = 3rd person imperative = Let him/her do x/y/z
> 
> I think the 'encargarse de que + subj' is the closest to English's 'have him/her do x/y/z.'. Even 'haz que' sounds "more direct" than 'have' is in English.
> 
> Thanks everyone for your help!



I agree, and I disagree. If I say _"Prefiero no hacerlo; que lo haga él,_" the meaning is not so much _'let him do it'_, which implies something akin to permission, but 'have him do it', which is more of an indirect command. And in my opinion that would fit quite well with the meaning you were looking for in the original post. I think it depends on context. And I certainly agree that 'hacer que' is much too strong: it orders someone to give someone else an order. It's an interesting thread.

Saludos


----------



## geostan

Pídale a Juan que me llame...  might be a little more polite.


----------



## blasita

donbill said:


> I think it depends on context. *I agree; please see above.*
> 
> And I certainly agree that 'hacer que' is much too strong: it orders someone to give someone else an order. *I agree, please see above. I wouldn't normally use this structure in Spanish (but it will depend on context!).*
> 
> It's an interesting thread.* I agree!*



Un saludo.


----------



## Masood

This use of 'Have' when used to give commands is generally not used in BrE. We tend to use 'Get'.
i.e. Get sb to do sth.
"Por favor, pídale que me llame", etc


----------



## donbill

Masood said:


> This use of 'Have' when used to give commands is generally not used in BrE. We tend to use 'Get'.
> i.e. Get sb to do sth.
> "Por favor, pídale que me llame", etc



I don't have statistics to back it up, but I'd say we use 'get' on this side of the Pond more than 'have', although both are quite common.


----------



## Forero

I'll guess that _haz_ is stronger than _get_ but not as strong as _make_ for an indirect "order", but I am curious about this. People tend to be sensitive about how direct we are with our indirection.


----------



## donbill

Forero said:


> I'll guess that _haz_ is stronger than _get_ but not as strong as _make_ for an indirect "order", but I am curious about this. People tend to be sensitive about how direct we are with our indirection.



An interesting observation!

Make him call me.
Get him to call me.
Have him call me.

I don't see much difference between the last two, but the first one strikes me as much stronger than the other two.


----------



## AquisM

In my opinion, _get _is stronger than _have_. I normally say _get_ when I'm mad. Example:

Have him go out.
Get him to go out.

or even

Get him out!

But definitely _make _is the strongest out of the three.


----------



## geostan

_*Get him to go out*_ is definitely not something I'd say.

I'd also say: _*Have him call me*_ rather than *Get him to call me.*


----------



## NewdestinyX

donbill said:


> I agree, and I disagree. If I say _"Prefiero no hacerlo; que lo haga él,_" the meaning is not so much _'let him do it'_, which implies something akin to permission, but 'have him do it', which is more of an indirect command. And in my opinion that would fit quite well with the meaning you were looking for in the original post. I think it depends on context. And I certainly agree that 'hacer que' is much too strong: it orders someone to give someone else an order. It's an interesting thread.
> 
> Saludos


YES! YES, Donbill.. I stand corrected! It's been years since I ran my verb tables and the such.. I've been 'practically' fluent for a long time now and though I wrote a course on Spanish -- My brain was a little mixed up there... In religious writings - the 'que + 3rd person imperative' is used for things like "let there be light" (and there was light) - so the 'let...' aspect was in my mind when I 'too quickly' responded to you. I 'do' very much agree that the 'have him do...' is much more like an imperative in the English language. In the 1st person plural the imperative translates to 'Let's......' - so again the 'let' aspect was in my mind. And frankly other Spanish grammars I've read also use the 'let him/her' explain the 3rd person singular imperative in Spanish. But you're right - the 'que + 3rd person imperative' is not at all about permission giving like 'let' is used mostly for in English.

I would be ready to accept 'que + 3rd person imp' as the "perfect" translation of 'have him..' to Spanish except I just don't hear it used all that much by natives in the indirect command way. In 2nd person, yes, a 'que' version is used all the time for imperatives like: "Que descanses" - Get some rest. That's super common in native speech. But 'que + 3rd person' isn't as common in everyday speech. And yet the English 'have him/her do...' is everyday in English. 

So I still think - that 'have him/her do = que + 3rd person imperative', though giving us a neat little box to have a direct translation from English to Spanish, isn't as "natural" a choice as some others given here so far. But the 'teacher' and 'course writer' in me - that likes to have "all the boxes filled" -* loves* it!!!! Thanks for your input!

And thanks to *all* for your input.
Y muchísimas gracias a todos por vuestra ayuda muy útil.

Esta frase "have ______ do this or that" es muy, muy común en inglés. Y sigo creyendo que debe haber una manera para expresarlo igualmente común en el castellano. No es 'hacer que alguien haga algo' ¡*para nada*!


donbill said:


> I don't have statistics to back it up, but I'd  say we use 'get' on this side of the Pond more than 'have', although  both are quite common.


"Get him to" and "Have him" are entirely different semantically in American or British English from my study.


----------



## inib

I'm also finding this thread interesting. 
I have more often had the inverse dilemma...how to translate, for example "¡Que haga los deberes ahora mismo!" (I come across this type of third person imperative very often in Spanish).
Grammar books will often suggest "Let him do ...", "may he do...", but that is nowhere near as natural/up-to-date/frequently used English as the Spanish version.
I do vote for "Que me llame luego" (of the ones mentioned so far) as the closest meaning in actual usage of "Have him call me later", even though it does not necessarily imply the intervention of the listener.


----------



## donbill

NewdestinyX said:


> YES! YES, Donbill.. I stand corrected!



I hope not! No correction was intended, just an alternate view. There are black-and-white issues in language use, but I don't think this is one of them. 

Sometimes I tend to hide behind the "it-all-depends-on-context" idea, and that's what I'll do here. But I really do believe that context and situation can have almost subliminal impact on how we decide to frame our messages.

Thanks for getting us started on a really interesting thread.

Saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

inib said:


> I'm also finding this thread interesting.
> I have more often had the inverse dilemma...how to translate, for example "¡Que haga los deberes ahora mismo!" (I come across this type of third person imperative very often in Spanish).
> Grammar books will often suggest "Let him do ...", "may he do...", but that is nowhere near as natural/up-to-date/frequently used English as the Spanish version.
> I do vote for "Que me llame luego" (of the ones mentioned so far) as the closest meaning in actual usage of "Have him call me later", even though it does not necessarily imply the intervention of the listener.


Yes. I think I'm certainly warming up to 'que + 3rd person subj' as the closest.

If we think about it - an imperative is always "to" a person - but it rarely has "teeth". It's not like "make you/him/us do this or that". It's a gentler feel in both languages and certainly context can change the strength too. I 'do' hear things like 'que me llame' often in Spain. And the more I think about it - it is indeed a lot like English's "have him...."

This has been an interesting conversation. I'm grateful for all the good responses!


----------



## NewdestinyX

Well after more thinking I'm falling "out of love" with "que + 3rd pers" now. After rereading my last post I mention imperatives being "to a person". When you say "Que me llame" that can't be saying "You", please,  have "him" call me. In "have him + verb" you're asking the listener to do something for you. "Que me llame" doesn't not do that at all the more I think about it. In 'have him..' it's always a "2nd" person polite command. Not 3rd person at all. You're saying "You please have him call me". So the best Spanish translation has to involve an imperative to tú that has nothing to do with the verb after 'have'.. It will require two verbs in Spanish for the best translation. That's what most of the natives have pretty much said too.


----------



## inib

NewdestinyX said:


> Well after more thinking I'm falling "out of love" with "que + 3rd pers" now. After rereading my last post I mention imperatives being "to a person". When you say "Que me llame" that can't be saying "You", please, have "him" call me. In "have him + verb" you're asking the listener to do something for you. "Que me llame" doesn't not do that at all the more I think about it. In 'have him..' it's always a "2nd" person polite command. Not 3rd person at all. You're saying "You please have him call me". So the best Spanish translation has to involve an imperative to tú that has nothing to do with the verb after 'have'.. It will require two verbs in Spanish for the best translation. That's what most of the natives have pretty much said too.


Yes, there is a difference, and in fact I underlined this fact at the end of my post #20, but I still think that they could very often be used in equivalent situations, if you are addressing a second person and referring to a third one.


----------



## vivo4chorizo

*I agree with Donbill, who is very well spoken, by the way. A most interesting thread! Thanks to everyone for their responses as they also helped me to further understand this concept. This has been great brain food. 

By the way, NewDestiny - it's always a pleasure to meet a fellow gabacho who has a passion for Spanish  Rock and roll!*


----------



## NewdestinyX

vivo4chorizo said:


> *I agree with Donbill, who is very well spoken, by the way. A most interesting thread! Thanks to everyone for their responses as they also helped me to further understand this concept. This has been great brain food.
> 
> By the way, NewDestiny - it's always a pleasure to meet a fellow gabacho who has a passion for Spanish  Rock and roll!*


Thanks, Vivo. I've been at this a long time! This forum is the best one as it is kept tightly on topic and attracts many natives. Natives are a key to any forum - and even more key are "fully bilingual from birth" speakers of Spanish and English. They are amazing as they have two stems grown in their brain and relate the two languages the best of all. 

I'm not sure I can agree with inib's point though. But I acknowledge that the issue is with the English idiom and how to understand how natives use - "have him". Until that is understood fully you can't do a good translation to the target language - in this case: Spanish.

Have him call me. = "You (listener), please, communicate (imperative verb) with him/her that I need a call from him"

Que me llame = Let (not permission) him call me[listener is not involved in the action to come - at all]. ---- Since you can't officially give an imperative to a 3rd person, not in the room, the 3rd person imperative in Spanish (and in any language) is more of a 'wish' or a hope that someone will respond. You 'need' them to do the verb's action - but you can't look them in the eye and give them an imperative. They're not there with you to hear it. That's why most grammar books make the closest translation to English of "Que me llame" be "Let him call me". Much in the same way that the only way to have an imperative to 'we' (ourselves) is to translate it to 'Let's....'. ¡Platiquemos! = Let's chat! - Que me llame = "Would that he [Let him] call me!" (using old English). 

In English's "Have him call me" - you are looking someone, in the eye, and giving them a 'polite' command. It's an action where the speaker expects the listener to do something in response - and the response is an action by a 3rd person not in the room where the conversation is going on. 

That's the best way I can explain it. When Spanish speakers use 'que.. + 3rd pers subj' - there's no sense of these 2 different actions needing to happen.
1)speaker politely commands listener..
2)to communicate with urgency to person #3 to do something.

There ya have it! Clear as mud?


----------



## Lurrezko

En mi uso español:

_Ocúpate de/Encárgate de/Haz que me llame_: pides a tu interlocutor que se responsabilice de que una 3ª persona te llame.

_Que me llame/Dile que me llame_: pides a tu interlocutor que transmita a una 3ª persona esa información. Si ésta te llama o no, no es asunto de tu interlocutor.

Saludos


----------



## Forero

Lurrezko said:


> En mi uso español:
> 
> _Ocúpate de/Encárgate de/Haz que me llame_: pides a tu interlocutor que se responsabilice de que una 3ª persona te llame.
> 
> _Que me llame/Dile que me llame_: pides a tu interlocutor que transmita a una 3ª persona esa información. Si ésta te llama o no, no es asunto de tu interlocutor.
> 
> Saludos


Si se entiende "Dile" o "Pídele", "Que me llame" me parece muy cerca a "Have him call me."

Una conversación por mensajero (perdónenme si no tiene sentido):

Mensajero: _Está tu amigo Juan._ [Your friend John's here.]
El amigo de Juan: _Que venga con nosotros al teatro._ [Have him come to the theater with us.]
(El mensajero va adonde espera Juan.)
Mensajero: _Que vengas con nosotros al teatro._ [He wants you to come with us to the theater.]
Juan: ¿Ya tiene las entradas? [Does he have the tickets?]
(El mensajero vuelve adonde está el amigo.)
Mensajero: _Que si ya tienes las entradas._ [He wants to know if you have the tickets.]
El amigo de Juan: _Que sí._ [Tell him yes.]

No veo ningún _let_ en esta conversación.


----------



## Lurrezko

Es un tema complejo, porque la construcción no tiene un sentido único. En algunos contextos, la construcción puede connotar _dile que_ _le doy permiso, que le dejo que lo haga_:

_Que venga tu hermano al cine, si no se va a enfadar.

_También, en un contexto amable, puede significar_ pídele que lo haga:

Que me llame cuando llegue, por favor.
_
En cambio, en otros le estás diciendo a tu interlocutor que le diga a la 3ª persona que debe hacer algo:

_- Dice mi primo que si tienes trabajo para él.
- Creo que sí. Que me llame._

Y también puede ser mucho más fuerte la obligación, un auténtico imperativo, según el contexto:
_
- Dice mi primo que ya te llamará cuando pueda.
- No, que me llame hoy.
_
En este último caso, puede sonar muy tajante o autoritario, pero en ninguno de los ejemplos yo entiendo que tu interlocutor tenga ninguna responsabilidad: sólo la de transmitir la información. Tu interlocutor es sólo un intermediario. En cambio, en _ocúpate de que me llame_ tu interlocutor también es responsable de que se cumpla la acción. Ese es mi uso, al menos.

Lamento la longitud del post. Un saludo


----------



## blasita

NewdestinyX said:


> Until that is understood fully you can't do a good translation to the target language - in this case: Spanish.  *I completely agree.*
> Have him call me. = "You (listener), please, communicate (imperative verb) with him/her that I need a call from him"
> In English's "Have him call me" - you are looking someone, in the eye, and giving them a 'polite' command.



En resumen, creo que la mejor traducción depende del contexto, y que también puede influir en bastantes casos el tono y la entonación con que se diga. Y me atrevo a decir que en inglés se usa más 'have someone do something' que en español (al menos con relación a sus traducciones más literales).

Como dije antes, _encárgate/ocúpate de que alguien haga algo_ (y todavía más _haz que_) no se usan normalmente por aquí en el lenguaje coloquial habitual. Esto no quiere decir que no se usen nunca, sino que tienen su contexto; ej. _encárgate de que termine su parte del proyecto hoy_.  A mí me suenan demasiado 'groseras' excepto en determinadas ocasiones; cuando especialmente quiero hacer responsable a una persona de que un tercero haga algo, usaría más frecuentemente otras, como por ejemplo: _asegúrate de que/a ver si consigues que/apáñatelas para que fulanito lo acabe_. Y no diría normalmente:_ encárgate de que me llame_, sino:_ di a X/dile que me llame _('decir' es más que suficiente y se utiliza mucho más para transmitir el mismo mensaje, en mi opinión).

La construcción _Que haga algo _puede usarse en muchos contextos y también sería posible en algunos de estos casos.

No quiero extenderme más; esto solamente es mi opinión y unos pocos comentarios del uso de por aquí.


----------

