# have: [hæv] vs. [hæf]



## brian

Hi,

two questions regarding the two different pronunciations of the English word _have_, depending on its meaning:

_to have _(= possess) _something_: [hæv]
_to have _(= need) _to do something_: [hæf]

There are some languages, like Russian (I think) and modern Greek, where the alternation between [v] and [f] depends on the sounds around it, i.e. [v] (voiced) before vowels and voiced consonants, [f] elsewhere. Example: αυτό [af'to] vs. αυλή [av'li].

But in English it's not so, as you can see here:

_I have two leaves._ --> [hæv]
_I have to leave._ --> [hæf]

So two questions:

1) is there a name for such a phonological alternation which is not dependent upon the sounds around it? In this sense, I guess you could say it is phonemic, whereas in other languages it is not since one sound can never occur where the other does (they are mutually exclusive).

2) does anyone know when this difference started to occur in English?

Thanks.


----------



## berndf

I think it must have something to do with the fact that _to_ is pronounced enclitically in _I have to leave _(i.e. _I *haf*to leave_).


----------



## Joannes

I agree. But then what about *need to*, for example?


----------



## Outsider

Are there dialects where _have_ and _half_ contain the same vowel? This could be another minimal pair...


----------



## brian

My _have_ (= "need") and _half_ sound identical.

What is a minimal pair (in languages), and what would this mean for [hæv] vs. [hæf]?

P.S. I agree that _to_ is often taken enclitically with _have_, just like with _need_ and _going_, producing _hafta, needa, gonna,_ etc.--as if they were all single words. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that [v] becomes [f] since, within a single word, English does (I think) follow the phonological rule I described above. I cannot think of a word in which [v] is followed by an unvoiced consonant.


----------



## Outsider

"Minimal pair" seems to be the term you were looking for with your question #1.

It's a pair of words with different meanings but whose sounds are the same except for one. In the case of _have_ versus _half/have_ (pronounced as you pronounce them), the sound where the two words differ is the last one. This proves that [f] and [v] cannot be analysed as variants of each other (allophones) in modern English, contrary to what happens in the other languages you mentioned. In English, The two act as independent sounds -- i.e. phonemes.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> English does (I think) follow the phonological rule I described above. I cannot think of a word in which [v] is followed by an unvoiced consonant.


I see it similarly. There seems to be still a reflex of the old logic in Western German languages (like e.g. in Old English) where [v] and [f] were allophones of the same phoneme and [v] was used only between vowels. In "have" the "e" is not completely mute. The softening of the [f] to [v] is what is left of it. With an enclitic "to" the "e" is really gone, i.e. _have to_ becomes _hafto._


----------



## Kevin Beach

berndf said:


> I think it must have something to do with the fact that _to_ is pronounced enclitically in _I have to leave _(i.e. _I *haf*to leave_).


I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. The standard pronunciation is always ha*v*, never ha*f*. There may be many occasions when the consonant is mispronounced, but that has nothing to do with any variation in its meaning. The main reason for it is probably its proximity to another consonant that makes it more difficult to pronounce in the standard way, such as the example you give.


----------



## Hulalessar

berndf said:


> I think it must have something to do with the fact that _to_ is pronounced enclitically in _I have to leave _(i.e. _I *haf*to leave_).


 
I think that must be it. In _have two_ there is a pause (juncture) between the two words. Whether it is as long as the pause that distinguishes _black bird_ from _blackbird_ or _re-fuse_ from _refuse_, I cannot make up my mind. Anyway, it seems to be long enough to stop the /v/ from becoming /f/


----------



## Hulalessar

Kevin Beach said:


> I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. The standard pronunciation is always ha*v*, never ha*f*. There may be many occasions when the consonant is mispronounced, but that has nothing to do with any variation in its meaning. The main reason for it is probably its proximity to another consonant that makes it more difficult to pronounce in the standard way, such as the example you give.


 
You're back on to sloppy speech again! It is not a mispronounciation. In careful deliberate speech or when reading aloud it may be /v/, but for most people most of the time it will be /f/. I would wager a small sum that even you do it!


----------



## Kevin Beach

Hulalessar said:


> You're back on to sloppy speech again! It is not a mispronounciation. In careful deliberate speech or when reading aloud it may be /v/, but for most people most of the time it will be /f/. I would wager a small sum that even you do it!


         I can say all sorts of things in different ways when I want to, but 35 years of voice training has attuned my ears to the way things are pronounced. I'm reporting what I hear. The thread seems to have developed on the assumption that "have" is pronounced "haf" when it has particular meanings. The answer is that it isn't.


----------



## brian

Kevin Beach said:


> I can say all sorts of things in different ways when I want to, but 35 years of voice training has attuned my ears to the way things are pronounced. I'm reporting what I hear. The thread seems to have developed on the assumption that "have" is pronounced "haf" when it has particular meanings. The answer is that it isn't.



...because, for me, _it *is*!_

Even if I were to slow down a sentence so much that I pronounced each word as if it were its own sentence:

_I. Have. To. Go!

_...I would still pronounce it "haf."

"Have" has a different meaning for me. It's basically a completely different word, you could say.



			
				Kevin Beach said:
			
		

> The standard pronunciation is always ha*v*, never ha*f*.



So this is untrue for me.


----------



## Flaminius

brian8733 said:


> But in English it's not so, as you can see here:
> 
> _I have two leaves._ --> [hæv]
> _I have to leave._ --> [hæf]
> 
> So two questions:
> 
> 1) is there a name for such a phonological alternation which is not dependent upon the sounds around it? In this sense, I guess you could say it is phonemic, whereas in other languages it is not since one sound can never occur where the other does (they are mutually exclusive).


If the meaning of the word alone influences the pronunciation, then the difference between [v] and [f] is a lexical property of the word.  This is at least what I learnt in school where English was a foreign language course.

There is, however, a different take—if not a completely different factor—on the [v] vs. [f] distinction.  Looking at your examples above, I realise that the two instances of _have_ have different stress patterns.  The first one is unaccented in the sentence if it is uttered without emphasis and a slight pause can be inserted before continuing the utterance.  The second one is uttered with the strongest stress in the sentence and the succeeding element, which is always _to_, is pronounced without a pause.  To attempt a generalisation, a closed syllable has the codal consonant devoiced by a following voiceless consonant if its syllable has a weaker stress than the affected syllable.  I bet this phenomenon has a name since it is common across languages (for a supporting proof, Hebrew [xazˈdo] for /ħasdo/).

If there are two explanations to account for a phenomenon, they need to be thought of as two different factors until proven otherwise.  *KB*'s objection may be a good starting point.  If you find [v] for a deontic _have_, is the word unstressed in the sentence?


----------



## Forero

In our neck of the woods, Brian8733's and mine, the auxiliary "have to" always has the _ff_ sound, even when the _to_ is pronounced long, as in:

_I don't really have to._ [Sounds like "haff too"]

Essentially the same goes for "used to":

_I never used to._ [Sounds like "yooss too"]

Some folks here even pronounce the _v_ as _ff_ in the gerund:

_I'll do it but I don't like having to._ [For some folks, sounds like "haffing to"].

(_Used to_ is defective and has no gerund.)

This must have started like the αυτό vs. αυγό thing (complementary distribution), but despite the spelling, around here _have to_ and _used to_ are always pronounced differently as auxiliaries, as opposed to:

_This tool is used to make dovetails._ [yoozd to]
_Is this all you have to make dovetails with?_ [hav to]

- where they are not auxiliaries and have their "normal" pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

Kevin Beach said:


> I can say all sorts of things in different ways when I want to, but 35 years of voice training has attuned my ears to the way things are pronounced. I'm reporting what I hear. The thread seems to have developed on the assumption that "have" is pronounced "haf" when it has particular meanings. The answer is that it isn't.


Let me put it this way: In _I have to leave_ people often stress _have_ which results in an enclitic pronunciation of _to_. The (alleged) unvoicing of "v" would due to this which has nothing to do with the difference in meaning as such.

In addition I think most BE speakers pronounce this sentence differently than most AE speakers. Like AE speakers they stress _have_ and unstress _to_ but maintain a short pause between the two and hence do not shorten the "v" as most AE speakers do. As a result of this BE speakers are less likely to unvoice the "v".


----------



## Kevin Beach

berndf said:


> Let me put it this way: In _I have to leave_ people often stress _have_ which results in an enclitic pronunciation of _to_. The (alleged) unvoicing of "v" would due to this which has nothing to do with the difference in meaning as such.
> 
> In addition I think most BE speakers pronounce this sentence differently than most AE speakers. Like AE speakers they stress _have_ and unstress _to_ but maintain a short pause between the two and hence do not shorten the "v" as most AE speakers do. As a result of this BE speakers are less likely to unvoice the "v".


I'm quite prepared to accept that there are regions where "have" is commonly pronounced as "haf" in certain positions, but that doesn't establish a general rule. It also doesn't indicate that the usage is based on meaning. 

Perhaps we can put it like this: _In some regions more than others, when "have" is followed by particular consonants, many people unvoice the *v* and pronounce it as "haf"_.


----------



## berndf

Kevin Beach said:


> I'm quite prepared to accept that there are regions where "have" is commonly pronounced as "haf" in certain positions, but that doesn't establish a general rule. It also doesn't indicate that the usage is based on meaning.
> 
> Perhaps we can put it like this: _In some regions more than others, when "have" is followed by particular consonants, many people unvoice the *v* and pronounce it as "haf"_.


I think we are getting closer to a common understanding. As I said, differences in meaning as such have nothing to do with the phenomenon. But differences in meaning result in different stress patterns (main sentence stress highlighted):
_I *have* to leave._
_I have *two* leaves._
which in turn result in different contractions. In the second example there is a clearer separation between _have_ and _two_ than between _have_ and _to_ in the first one.


----------



## Kevin Beach

berndf said:


> I think we are getting closer to a common understanding. As I said, differences in meaning as such have nothing to do with the phenomenon. But differences in meaning result in different stress patterns (main sentence stress highlighted):
> _I *have* to leave._
> _I have *two* leaves._
> which in turn result in different contractions. In the second example there is a clearer separation between _have_ and _two_ than between _have_ and _to_ in the first one.


Hmmmm ... that is still a risky analysis, because the variation in emphasis between the two statements may itself vary from region to region.

However, the point is that _any_ difference in meaning is shown by the tonal emphasis, not by unvoicing the *v*. The unvoicing is incidental, not determinative.


----------



## berndf

Kevin Beach said:


> The unvoicing is incidental, not determinative.


That is my view as well.


----------



## brian

That's not really my view, though.

Difference in meaning for me is shown completely by the voicing or unvoicing of *v*, _even if_ perhaps (or probably) this was initially due to stress pattern differences.

I can show this by creating the same stress patterns for both sentences (stress in *bold*):

1. _I *have* to leave. _<-- normal stress pattern (secondary stress on "leave")

2. _You bought two leaves??
No, I *have* two leaves._ <-- almost same stress pattern as above, esp. for "have two"

1 has [f], and 2 has [v]. I think there may also be a difference in vowel length--the *a* in 2 is longer, but that may be a product of its having [v].


----------



## Kevin Beach

brian8733 said:


> That's not really my view, though.
> 
> Difference in meaning for me is shown completely by the voicing or unvoicing of *v*, _even if_ perhaps (or probably) this was initially due to stress pattern differences.
> 
> I can show this by creating the same stress patterns for both sentences (stress in *bold*):
> 
> 1. _I *have* to leave. _<-- normal stress pattern (secondary stress on "leave")
> 
> 2. _You bought two leaves??_
> _No, I *have* two leaves._ <-- almost same stress pattern as above, esp. for "have two"
> 
> 1 has [f], and 2 has [v]. I think there may also be a difference in vowel length--the *a* in 2 is longer, but that may be a product of its having [v].


Well .... thus is the speech of Southern Louisiana so gloriously different from BrE! Long may the variations continue, for in such is the found the richness of English varieties.

It's _still_ only a regional variation though!


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> 1. _I *have* to leave. _<-- normal stress pattern (secondary stress on "leave")
> 
> 2. _You bought two leaves??_
> _No, I *have* two leaves._ <-- almost same stress pattern as above, esp. for "have two"


If I am not mistaken, AE speakers will pronounce _to_ and _two_ differently: _to_ reduced to an enclitic [tə] while _two_ remains [tu( : )] even if not stressed. And this produces the difference.


----------



## brian

berndf said:
			
		

> If I am not mistaken, AE speakers will pronounce _to_ and _two_ differently: _to_ reduced to an enclitic [tə] while _two_ remains [tu( : )] even if not stressed. And this produces the difference.



When _have_ is stressed for clarity, i.e. the sentence slows down, then _to_ will normally (for me) be pronounced [tu]... that is, [hæf] + [tu'li:v].



			
				KB said:
			
		

> It's _still_ only a regional variation though!



I honestly had no idea--I thought this was a general phenomenon for (almost) all English speakers, hence the wording of my first post.

Guess I shouldn't go 'round assumin' things no more, seein' how I speak so differint than y'all. 

Interesting though.


----------



## Kevin Beach

brian8733 said:


> When _have_ is stressed for clarity, i.e. the sentence slows down, then _to_ will normally (for me) be pronounced [tu]... that is, [hæf] + [tu'li:v].
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly had no idea--I thought this was a general phenomenon for (almost) all English speakers, hence the wording of my first post.
> 
> Guess I shouldn't go 'round assumin' things no more, seein' how I speak so differint than y'all.
> 
> Interesting though.


Languages are like tunes, brian. We just play them on different intruments. The trick is to see the beauty in the difference, instead of just the difference itself.


----------



## CapnPrep

I have the same voiceless pronunciation of "obligation" _have_ as brian8733 and forero. I also have it for the 3rd person singular form _has_. While voicing assimilation with enclitic _to_ was no doubt a factor in the evolution of these forms, this cannot be the complete explanation, because in the past tense I pronounce _had to_ with a [d]. 

(The assimilation hypothesis would also be completely unable to explain forero's example of "haffing", but I find this pronounciation unacceptable.)


----------



## Talib

berndf said:


> If I am not mistaken, AE speakers will pronounce _to_ and _two_ differently: _to_ reduced to an enclitic [tə] while _two_ remains [tu( : )] even if not stressed. And this produces the difference.


We pronounce to that way when it's unstressed (which is usually is). In emphatic speech it's I have _to_ go (that is, [tu]).

As for have, I never thought of it as anything but one word. I have two apples vs. I hafta go. I think this is just a function of stress. We stress _have_ in the first example to make it clear we're talking about possession, and not something we "hafta" do. 

"Hafta" is just an assimilation. Voiced [v] becomes voiceless [f] next to the voiceless [t], especially when unstressed. 

(By the way I am a native speaker of Canadian English but it is almost identical to General American except for some vowel sounds and lexical items).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Kevin Beach said:


> I can say all sorts of things in different ways when I want to, but 35 years of voice training has attuned my ears to the way things are pronounced. I'm reporting what I hear. The thread seems to have developed on the assumption that "have" is pronounced "haf" when it has particular meanings. The answer is that it isn't.



I disagree. For me there is a definite difference depending on meaning and every native (Irish) speaker I have ever heard makes the distinction.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I disagree. For me there is a definite difference depending on meaning and every native (Irish) speaker I have ever heard makes the distinction.


Pedro, can you be more specific and give us some examples, please?

There are several distinct Irish accents. Are you saying that they all distinguish between have and haf in the same way?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Kevin Beach said:


> Pedro, can you be more specific and give us some examples, please?
> 
> There are several distinct Irish accents. Are you saying that they all distinguish between have and haf in the same way?



I cannot speak for the Northern Irish accent with certainty (although I believe it to be the same) as it is quite different from the rest but for the others we usually distinguish between have and "haef" depending on context

The examples already put forth are valid for the Irish as well, when I say I _have_ to do it, have is always said as [haef] while stating that I posses something, I _have_ three cars for example, the pronunciation will be the "standard".


----------



## Kevin Beach

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I cannot speak for the Northern Irish accent with certainty (although I believe it to be the same) as it is quite different from the rest but for the others we usually distinguish between have and "haef" depending on context
> 
> The examples already put forth are valid for the Irish as well, when I say I _have_ to do it, have is always said as [haef] while stating that I posses something, I _have_ three cars for example, the pronunciation will be the "standard".


I don't think that means that there is a "rule" though, Pedro. It is just confirmation of regional uses. In fact, to the British ear there is a lot of Irish in American accents, so there may be a connection between the two.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Kevin Beach said:


> I don't think that means that there is a "rule" though, Pedro. It is just confirmation of regional uses. In fact, to the British ear there is a lot of Irish in American accents, so there may be a connection between the two.



I would agree on both counts. It's interesting to note however that, from what I've read here, it would seem that this "regionalism" is used in most Anglophone areas outside of England proper.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I would agree on both counts. It's interesting to note however that, from what I've read here, it would seem that this "regionalism" is used in most Anglophone areas outside of England proper.


Well, hang on ... is it?  Scotland? Wales? Australia? New Zealand? Canada?  India? South Africa? The Caribbean? The _whole_ of the USA? And there's more to variation in Irish accents than just North (east) and South. Dublin? Cork? Kerry? Connemara?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Kevin Beach said:


> Well, hang on ... is it? Scotland? Wales? Australia? New Zealand? Canada? India? South Africa? The Caribbean? The _whole_ of the USA? And there's more to variation in Irish accents than just North (east) and South. Dublin? Cork? Kerry? Connemara?



Concentrating solely on Ireland, I've never come into contact with someone who _didn't_ make the distinction, so on the basis of that I feel confident in saying Irish people differentiate in pronunciation.

As to the rest, from what I read here and from personal experience, it seems that the distinction is more than a mere regionalism. I could be wrong however.


----------



## CapnPrep

Talib said:


> "Hafta" is just an assimilation. Voiced [v] becomes voiceless [f] next to the voiceless [t], especially when unstressed.


I continue to disagree with this. English, like many other languages, has anticipatory voice assimilation across syllable boundaries in fast speech, but the effect disappears in careful speech. For example, in response to brian8733's query:


brian8733 said:


> I cannot think of a word in which [v] is followed by an unvoiced consonant.


  The OED contains the following examples: _dovetail_, _livetrap_, and _love-child_ (along with the proper nouns _Duvetyn_ and _Polovtsian_). In fast speech, the [v] may devoice to [f], but otherwise the pronunciation is in fact [v] followed by [t] (or [ʧ]).

The case of _have/has_ is different, because for many AmE speakers (and others), the [f] is maintained even in slow, disconnected speech (as brian8733 illustrated above). Merriam-Webster's online dictionary indicates the following pronunciations (note that /a/ represents the vowel in _ash_):_have_: \ˈhav, (h)əv, v; _in “have to” meaning “must” usually_ ˈhaf\
_has_: \ˈhaz, (h)əz, z, s; _in “has to” meaning “must” usually_ ˈhas\​


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> I continue to disagree with this. English, like many other languages, has anticipatory voice assimilation across syllable boundaries in fast speech, but the effect disappears in careful speech.


And I still think it is related to the enclitic pronunciation of "to" in "have to" which inhibits the necessary degree of separation of syllables as it is possible in "dove-tail"


----------



## Flaminius

If the pronunciation [hæf] is related to the enclitic pronunciation of "to", then is it possible to demonstrate the less enclitic nature of the BrE "have to" by spliting the two words by another?  Such as by an adverb in the following?
I have really to go.

Is this more acceptable in BrE than in AmE?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> And I still think it is related to the enclitic pronunciation of "to" in "have to" which inhibits the necessary degree of separation of syllables as it is possible in "dove-tail"


Since we are simply repeating ourselves now, let me say (again) that it is possible to separate the syllables of _have to_ (as brian8733 already showed), and yet [f] remains obligatory.

I already agreed above that the change to [f] was historically "related to" the presence of enclitic _to_. But this cannot be the whole story, because it does not explain why _had_ is not pronounced with [t] in the same contexts, or why _love to_ and _strive to_ do not allow [f], etc.

All of this indicates that the primary explanation in the synchronic grammar of the relevant varieties of English is _lexical_.



Flaminius said:


> I have really to go.
> 
> Is this more acceptable in BrE than in AmE?


Yes, it is possible to separate _have_ and _to_ in BE, as in your example, and also to move _have _in front of the subject in questions (_What have I to do?_).


----------



## Kevin Beach

There is a saying that "every word has its own etymology", which means that the history of a word's development cannot necessarily be deduced from the development of a similar word.

The fact that "Had to" does not mutate to "Hat to", or "Love to" to "Luf to" (although I have heard both do so on occasions) does not mean that there is a lexical reason for the pronunciation of "Have to" as "Haf to".

People's speech can vary daily. Only half an hour ago somebody commented that I pronounce a particular word differently in different circumstances. The reason is that I have the small vestige of a childhood stammer and sometimes have to make more effort to get the word out when it follows certain consonants.

I have noticed similar phenomena in the speech of people who lisp, or who can't pronounce "r" or "l" or some other consonants. I have also heard children imitate parents who have impediments, so that a mispronunciation becomes a family trait.

This modification of "Have to" to "Haf to" in (apparently) some Irish and AmE accents is, I suggest, the result of a habit formed by one person or a small group long ago, which has spread through particular populations. Irish consonants can sometimes be very "soft" anyway. I venture that it started in Ireland and was exported to the USA. To search for a reason in differences of meaning or usage is to chase a chimera.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> All of this indicates that the primary explanation in the synchronic grammar of the relevant varieties of English is _lexical_.


Are you sure that the assimilation ['lʌvtə] > ['lʌftə] doesn't exist? I think it actually does; but just not as regularly as ['hævtə] > ['hæftə]. In an effort to reconcile our views, let me ask: Could it be that the enclitic "to" produces a tendency to devoice final voiced consonants but only sometimes, at least in _have _&_ has_, has this tendency become a lexical feature in some varieties of English.


----------



## CapnPrep

Kevin Beach said:


> There is a saying that "every word has its own etymology", which means that the history of a word's development cannot necessarily be deduced from the development of a similar word.
> 
> The fact that "Had to" does not mutate to "Hat to", or "Love to" to "Luf to" (although I have heard both do so on occasions) does not mean that there is a lexical reason for the pronunciation of "Have to" as "Haf to".


This is precisely the definition of a lexically conditioned devlopment.



berndf said:


> Are you sure that the assimilation ['lʌvtə] > ['lʌftə] doesn't exist?



As I said before, one can find all sorts of assimilations in fast speech, but in careful speech no one (as far as I know) would say ['lʌftə] or ['lʌftu], whereas ['hæftə]/['hæftu] is the only possible pronunciation (for me and for some others in this discussion), in all speech styles. That is the difference.

 There are probably varieties of English where speakers "intend" to say ['hævtu] and  end up occasionally saying ['hæftu] under certain circumstances. And this is no doubt the _origin_ of the usage under discussion here, but this pronunciation has now become fully grammaticalized (for these two forms of this particular verb with this particular meaning) and no longer has the status of a variable alternative pronunciation, erratic sloppy mispronunciation, etc.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> And this is no doubt the _origin_ of the usage under discussion here, but this pronunciation has now become fully grammaticalized (for these two forms of this particular verb with this particular meaning) and no longer has the status of a variable alternative pronunciation, erratic sloppy mispronunciation, etc.


We seem to agree. I would just add the qualification _in some varieties of English_.


----------



## Kevin Beach

CapnPrep said:


> There are probably varieties of English where speakers "intend" to say ['hævtu] and  end up occasionally saying ['hæftu] under certain circumstances. And this is no doubt the _origin_ of the usage under discussion here, but this pronunciation has now become fully grammaticalized (for these two forms of this particular verb with this particular meaning) and no longer has the status of a variable alternative pronunciation, erratic sloppy mispronunciation, etc.


Well, that does not apply in BrE.


----------



## brian

I thought it was clear that CapnPrep was talking specifically about American usage, or rather any varietal usage showing this phenomenon.


----------



## brian

I just had an interesting situation--not the first, and certainly not the last.

Context: talking with a friend _online_ about parrots (an African Grey). She said it's strange that the bird repeats so much--not just words and phrases, but even household noises like doors opening and faucets running. I replied jokingly:

_Yeah, but you figure, being locked up in a cage all day, what else *do they have to do*?_

Since it was an online conversation, I noticed immediately that this rhetorical question, in particular the word _have_, could be understood in two very different ways, as has been discussed in this thread: 1) _have to do = must do_ (necessity), and 2) _have to do = can do/be able to do/have available to do_ (a sort of "possession"). Obviously, in this context, (2) is the appropriate meaning, and it could probably be inferred even online, but the ambiguity is still there.

In my own _speech_, however, this sentence would never be ambiguous. The meaning would be given by the difference in pronunciation of "have" ([hæf] vs. [hæv]).

So KB and other BE speakers, would you not be able to distinguish this in speech? Would you pronounce *What do you have to do?* the same way for both meanings?


----------



## Kevin Beach

brian8733 said:


> I just had an interesting situation--not the first, and certainly not the last.
> 
> Context: talking with a friend _online_ about parrots (an African Grey). She said it's strange that the bird repeats so much--not just words and phrases, but even household noises like doors opening and faucets running. I replied jokingly:
> 
> _Yeah, but you figure, being locked up in a cage all day, what else *do they have to do*?_
> 
> Since it was an online conversation, I noticed immediately that this rhetorical question, in particular the word _have_, could be understood in two very different ways, as has been discussed in this thread: 1) _have to do = must do_ (necessity), and 2) _have to do = can do/be able to do/have available to do_ (a sort of "possession"). Obviously, in this context, (2) is the appropriate meaning, and it could probably be inferred even online, but the ambiguity is still there.
> 
> In my own _speech_, however, this sentence would never be ambiguous. The meaning would be given by the difference in pronunciation of "have" ([hæf] vs. [hæv]).
> 
> So KB and other BE speakers, would you not be able to distinguish this in speech? Would you pronounce *What do you have to do?* the same way for both meanings?


There is no distinction in the pronunciation in BrE, Brian. It isn't a problem, because we deduce the meaning from the context. Incidentally, in each case we'd be more likely to say "have got to do", with the same ambiguity of meaning as your version.


----------



## Forero

I noticed after I typed it that my "Is this all you have to make dovetails with?" is almost a minimal pair too.  Change the /v/ sound to an /f/ sound and the meaning changes.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

brian8733 said:


> So KB and other BE speakers, would you not be able to distinguish this in speech? Would you pronounce *What do you have to do?* the same way for both meanings?



Speaking solely for Ireland, we would certainly distinguish between the two meanings.


----------



## Mr.Slade

brian8733 said:


> Hi,
> 
> two questions regarding the two different pronunciations of the English word _have_, depending on its meaning:
> 
> _to have _(= possess) _something_: [hæv]
> _to have _(= need) _to do something_: [hæf]...


 
This is not a matter or mere assimilation. Compare:
I have to feed my children.
This is all the money I have to feed my children.

One "have" can be pronounced with an "f", and the other can't, so it's a matter of intended meaning, not assimilation.

"Gonna" is not just a lazy way of saying "going to." You can't say "I'm gonna Chicago." "Gonna" can only be used with a verb. The way it is pronounced changes its function.

"Hafta" belongs to a group of locutions that include wanna, gonna, oughta, and useta, that are called "periphrastic modal constructions." Their special pornunciations are tied to their special syntactic function, not just to phonotactics.


----------



## mcc7x

Mr.Slade said:


> This is not a matter or mere assimilation. Compare:
> I have to feed my children.
> This is all the money I have to feed my children.
> 
> One "have" can be pronounced with an "f", and the other can't, so it's a matter of intended meaning, not assimilation.
> 
> "Gonna" is not just a lazy way of saying "going to." You can't say "I'm gonna Chicago." "Gonna" can only be used with a verb. The way it is pronounced changes its function.
> 
> "Hafta" belongs to a group of locutions that include wanna, gonna, oughta, and useta, that are called "periphrastic modal constructions." Their special pronunciations are tied to their special syntactic function, not just to phonotactics.



To weigh in on the discussion, I have always felt that [*'hæːf 'tu*/*'hæftə*] and [*'yuːs 'tu*/*'yustə*] were the 'precise' and 'relaxed' pronunciations of the "periphrastic modal constructions" _"have to"_ and _"used to"_. Never are these ever pronounced [*'hæːv 'tu*] or [*'yuːzd 'tu*], even by the most careful speakers (for instance, my Ivy League father and uncle)! As all of the Americans who have posted to this thread have been able to confirm, there is an unwritten phonological difference in the way these constructions are pronounced, which is respected by most if not all American speakers of the language unless they are making a deliberately analytical pronunciation of each word involved.

Best,
mcc7x


----------

