# Want + finite that - clause



## Mattterhorn

Hello
I have never seen sentences with main verb WANT + finite that-clause, such as 'I want that you help me with my homework', I always see the subject-to-object raising construction: I want you to help me with my homework.
My question is if WANT obligatorily takes non-finite clauses as complement and therefore, tensed clauses in this position are ungrammatical. In such case, why are they ungrammatical? It's just a lexical particularity of this verb?
For example the verb TELL admits both constructions:
I told him that it was too late
I told him that he should hurry up
I told him to hurry up

Many thanks in advance
Regards


----------



## gengo

I'm not sure what your question is (the grammatical terms are over my head), but there is a dialect of English in which people say "I want that you should help me."  I believe it comes from Yiddish.  However, in standard English only the other form is considered correct (I want you to help me).

To want functions a bit differently from to tell, as your examples show.  As far as I know, we never say "I want that..."


----------



## micafe

gengo said:


> As far as I know, we never say "I want that..."



Oh, yes, we do... "I want that expensive car"... 

I'm sorry gengo, I just couldn't resist.

I know, a moderator is going to delete this.. but I am laughing. I hope I made you laugh also...


----------



## gengo

Bien dicho, micafe.  Tienes toda la razón.  Nunca digas nunca, como dicen, ¿no?


----------



## frog1gsu

Basically "I want" always takes a non finite verb! Don't understand the problem! "I want that expensive car" is not a relative pronoun but a demonstrative pronoun! Take that!


----------



## gengo

frog1gsu said:


> Basically "I want" always takes a non finite verb! Don't understand the problem! "I want that expensive car" is not a relative pronoun but a demonstrative pronoun! Take that!



Please calm down and let go of that exclamation mark key.  Micafe was making a joke, which seems quite obvious from the wording and all the emoticons.


----------



## micafe

gengo said:


> Please calm down and let go of that exclamation mark key.  Micafe was making a joke, which seems quite obvious from the wording and all the emoticons.



Thank you gengo..


----------



## cubaMania

Yes, it was obviously a joke.
Meanwhile, back to the original question...
There is not much discernible rhyme or reason for determining what kinds of clauses are permissible with what verbs.


> Not only does the main or _*matrix* verb determine whether an object complement may be used, it also determines which type of object Complement may be used. I.e, some verbs like *want* may take only an infinitive__*
> .*__*..
> 
> *Whereas others, like *try*, may take either an infinitive or a gerund, but never a that-clause
> *...
> 
> *__Every verb that takes an Object Complement has a unique pattern of which complements it allows, whether the choice of complement makes a semantic difference or not, and what kind of difference it might make, which senses and tenses of the verb work with which choices, and which subclasses of complement are allowed, required, or forbidden._


Look here, especially at item #6, for more detail and examples:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/complmnt.html


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, frog.

You say: "... I want that expensive car" is not a relative pronoun but a demonstrative pronoun!"

I say to you: "Neither is "that" in 'I want that you help me with my homework'. It's called "conjunction" ".

Bestest. 

GS


----------



## Mattterhorn

Thanks a lot to you all, it is very clear now!
I never happened to hear 'I want that you..', but I did not know it was ungrammatical. Now I know.
Regards


----------



## frog1gsu

I thought only words like 'but' & 'and' were conjunctions - & 'that' in 'that expensive car' is actually a demonstrative adjective - I believe so anyway. Compare 'voglio che tu...' with 'voglio quella macchina cara'. 'Quella' is a d. adjective. But in english you mustn't say 'I want that you...' - it is always 'I want you to + inf.' It's just a funny construction. Regards edw


----------



## SevenDays

"Want" strongly influences the type of clause that follows it; what you "want' is not yet realized, which means that this verb looks to the future (from the time of speaking). A "to" infinitive-clause is compatible with "want" because "to" suggests a situation that is "potential." In other words, "to" is prospective; it points to the future as well:* I want* *to go*. On the other hand, a "that-clause," in its external form, doesn't have that prospective feature, and so it isn't compatible with a verb like "want." So, yes, the lexical meaning of "want" selects a nonfinite to-infinitive clause and rejects a "that-clause."
Cheers


----------



## Mattterhorn

Many thanks for your clear explanation.
Regards


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, frog.

My fault: I should have put an asterisk before the ungrammatical sentence. Thus: 
"Neither is "that" in '*I want that you help me with my homework'. It's called "conjunction" "

What induced me to write the post was your mentioning the fact the "that" is not a _relative pronoun_. Of course it is not, but if the sentence _were_ correct, the function of "that" would be neither that of a _demonstrative adjective or pronoun_ nor that of a _relative pronoun_, but that of a subordinating _conjunction_, as in "I hope that he'll help me". 

GS


----------



## frog1gsu

Yes you're quite right - I had never heard of a "subordinating conjunction", but now I know. Thanks!


----------



## JennyTW

Sevendays' explanation is lovely but unfortunately not always true. Look at the example above with "hope". This verb also looks to the future, but it can take that" ( or "to").  
The sad fact of the matter is that with this issue, as well as with whether a verb takes a gerund or infinitive, there ARE no magic rules. You just have to learn how each verb functions, I'm afraid.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Seven.

I think we have much in common when it comes to _justifying_ the the use of English "to", which is strictly related to the _real_ _status_ of "to" in the grammar of English.
A good minimal pair is of course:

"I'd like *to* work with him" vs. "I liked work*ing* with him"

Best 

GS


----------



## JennyTW

And of course there are other verbs where such an explanation can be useful. 

I use it to explain to students of English the difference in use of the following verbs when used with either the gerund or infinitive; remember, forget and stop. 

For example "I remember GOING to the beach as a child" (the going happened before the remembering, but "I must remember to phone my mum"  (the phoning happens AFTER the remembering). 

This is OK for these verbs but not for ALL verbs.


----------



## SevenDays

JennyTW said:


> Sevendays' explanation is lovely but unfortunately not always true. Look at the example above with "hope". This verb also looks to the future, but it can take that" ( or "to").
> The sad fact of the matter is that with this issue, as well as with whether a verb takes a gerund or infinitive, there ARE no magic rules. You just have to learn how each verb functions, I'm afraid.



Hello
My explanation was restricted to the verb _want_; it wasn't meant to apply to _all_ verbs. And, yes, you are right; there are no magic rules. The type of a complement that a verb takes is sometimes strongly influenced by the meaning of that particular verb. I think we all agree on that. The example with "hope" in interesting, as far as a comparison with "want." It's true that "hope" and "want" look to the future, and thus are compatible with an infinitive complement that, by nature, also looks prospectively: I want to go, I hope to go. But sometimes "hope" is anchored in the present in a way that doesn't apply to "want." For example, if "Mary has arrived," I could say "I hope that she is here to say" but I couldn't say "I want that she is here to stay," even though both verbs look to the future. Unlike a to-infinitive complement, a that-clause complement isn't by nature prospective. If the internal structure of a that-clause is set in present time ("that she is here to stay," present by virtue of "is"), then the clause would be incompatible with a verb like "want" that is heavily forward-looking. But I confess that I'm thinking out loud; there may be an example that undermines what I've just said. But your point remains valid: there are no magic rules.
Cheers


----------



## Archilochus

"there are no magic rules"

Maybe there should be a popup when one comes to the English grammar forums (following Dante):

*Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here. There Are No Magic Rules*


----------



## frog1gsu

It seems to me that, although there are no magic rules, this construction should not be difficult to master in English, given that it is always "want + noun + to + inf." I wonder why it is so difficult to learn it properly. I guess it might be because it is odd to have an infinitive which in fact has a subject in a way - i.e. the object of the main verb. Perhaps this is illogical and only the english could think it up. It does sound ridiculous in French, Spanish etc.


----------



## Thomas1

The verb 'want' also accepts 'noun+gerund' syntax, as in:
_I don't want my children coming home late._

Another interesting thing is that, whereas English doesn't like sentences like 'The teacher wants that the student be quiet.', you can come across sentences like:_
What he really wants is that the student be quiet._
Compare:But what I want is that the engine should search even from the database and display the respective pages. 
http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j...yYCYCA&usg=AFQjCNFGRJDvgydVu7dI-zmaiKJiVSaREw

*What women want is that sportscar blast*
http://www.news.com.au/news/what-women-want-is-that-sportscar-blast/story-fna7dq6e-1111117468599​ 
There seems to be some inconsistency with the verb 'want' in this respect.


----------



## SevenDays

It's not really inconsistency; what happens is that we are changing the structure of the sentence. In *what he really wants is that the student be quiet*, the "that-clause" is no longer forced to function syntactically as the direct object of "want," which, as we've seen, is ungrammatical. Now, "want" and the "that-clause" are separated by the copula "is," and can therefore co-exist happily in the sentence. In this structure, the direct object of "want" is "what," and the "that-clause" functions as subject complement. 
Cheers


----------



## Thomas1

By inconsistency I meant the fact that 'want' doesn't take on a 'that' clause as a direct object, whereas it is possible with other similar verbs of volition that can also function with a 'that' clause as a direct object.

Let's take, for example, 'demand':
_What he demands is that the student be quiet._
This sentence can also be paraphrased as follows:
_He demands that the student be quiet.
_Such a structure isn't possible, however, with 'want'.


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> My explanation was restricted to the verb _want_; it wasn't meant to apply to _all_ verbs. And, yes, you are right; there are no magic rules. The type of a complement that a verb takes is sometimes strongly influenced by the meaning of that particular verb. I think we all agree on that. The example with "hope" in interesting, as far as a comparison with "want." It's true that "hope" and "want" look to the future, and thus are compatible with an infinitive complement that, by nature, also looks prospectively: I want to go, I hope to go. But sometimes "hope" is anchored in the present in a way that doesn't apply to "want." For example, if "Mary has arrived," I could say "I hope that she is here to say" but I couldn't say "I want that she is here to stay," even though both verbs look to the future. Unlike a to-infinitive complement, a that-clause complement isn't by nature prospective. If the internal structure of a that-clause is set in present time ("that she is here to stay," present by virtue of "is"), then the clause would be incompatible with a verb like "want" that is heavily forward-looking. But I confess that I'm thinking out loud; there may be an example that undermines what I've just said. But your point remains valid: there are no magic rules.
> Cheers


In English, _hope_ does not look to the future or imply something unreal or hypothetical:

_I hope she can come with you._
_I hope she is with him when he needs her._
_I hope she came with you._

_Hope_ uses indicative in the appropriate tense; it is _wish_ that uses subjunctive.





Thomas1 said:


> By inconsistency I meant the fact that 'want' doesn't take on a 'that' clause as a direct object, whereas it is possible with other similar verbs of volition that can also function with a 'that' clause as a direct object.
> 
> Let's take, for example, 'demand':
> _What he demands is that the student be quiet._
> This sentence can also be paraphrased as follows:
> _He demands that the student be quiet.
> _Such a structure isn't possible, however, with 'want'.


I believe this structure is possible, but it is not as convenient or versatile as the alternatives. What is not possible (at present) is "He demands the student to be quiet."


----------



## frog1gsu

SevenDays said:


> "Want" strongly influences the type of clause that follows it; what you "want' is not yet realized, which means that this verb looks to the future (from the time of speaking). A "to" infinitive-clause is compatible with "want" because "to" suggests a situation that is "potential." In other words, "to" is prospective; it points to the future as well:* I want* *to go*. On the other hand, a "that-clause," in its external form, doesn't have that prospective feature, and so it isn't compatible with a verb like "want." So, yes, the lexical meaning of "want" selects a nonfinite to-infinitive clause and rejects a "that-clause."
> Cheers


This discussion may be over my head, but I thought I might mention the phrase "I assume that you are coming", since this also looks to the future, but it takes a that-clause. We cannot say "I assume you to be coming". So where is the rule that, if the main verb looks to a future situation, then it will take "to" + infinitive?


----------



## JennyTW

As I said before, this isn't a rule that can be used in general. We could spend all day finding conflicting examples.


----------



## Thomas1

Forero said:


> [...]I believe this structure is possible, but it is not as convenient or versatile as the alternatives. What is not possible (at present) is "He demands the student to be quiet."


Hello, Forero,

Correct me if I misunderstood you, but if you mean that the verb 'want' lends itself to be used with a 'that' clause as its direct object, then I agree given its characteristics. However, the matter whether it is used in standard English (media, literature) is not that straightforward, I'm afraid. People don't use it this way except for some dialects, as mentioned before, that are very likely to be influenced by other languages' syntax. 

On the other hand, 'demand to do something' looks OK.


----------



## Forero

Thomas1 said:


> Hello, Forero,
> 
> Correct me if I misunderstood you, but if you mean that the verb 'want' lends itself to be used with a 'that' clause as its direct object, then I agree given its characteristics. However, the matter whether it is used in standard English (media, literature) is not that straightforward, I'm afraid. People don't use it this way except for some dialects, as mentioned before, that are very likely to be influenced by other languages' syntax.
> 
> On the other hand, 'demand to do something' looks OK.


The sentence you found about the sportscar blast uses the demonstrative adjective _that_, so it does not really apply, but a simplified version of the other sentence you found sounds perfectly normal to me:

_What I want is that the engine search the database and display the respective pages._

And so do these variations:

_What do I want? Just that the engine search the database and display the respective pages._
_It is only that the engine search the database and display the respective pages that I want._

In all of these, "that the engine search" may be replaced by "for the engine to search" with no real difference, though the latter is more commonly used.

It is just not logical for these to be normal but the simple "I want that the engine search the database ..." not to be. I know I have heard people say things like "I want for the engine to search ...", but we have the simpler form "I want the engine to search ..." that we use much more often than either of these alternatives.

This simpler form does not work with as many verbs as the alternatives and I think this is what makes _want_ different.


----------



## Thomas1

I can see it now, thank you for telling me that and for your informative answer. 
I've also come across 'want for x to do something' syntax a couple of times, but the usual 'want x to do something' is far more frequent to my experience.


----------

