Forma kauzatywna- pilne

[Gość: licealista]

Nie bardzo to jeszcze rozumiem, a muszę zrozumieć do jutra... Błagam pomocy!!
Czy moglibyście zmienić te zdania używając w/w formy (tj. have something
done)
1) Somebody stole my suitcase while I was loogking in the other way.
2) I will ask somebody to install the pipes in the bathroom.
3) We are going to ask someone to mend the shoes.
4) We pay the people to clean our windows every month.
Nie pytam w jakim celu używać tej formy- gubię się w czasach; co przybiera
formę czasu- (posiłkowy have??- chyba nie...), czy używa się w tej
formie "will". Bardzo, proszę pomóżcie!! Po prostu gdyby ktoś zamienił to na
formę k., ja już sobie resztę dopowiem. Bardzo, bardzo z góry dziękuję.
Thank you from the mountain (in advance of course...)
Pozdrawiam bardzo

[Gość: steph]

What is 'forma kauzatywna' when it's at home???

[Gość: licealista]

"forma kauzatywna"- I don't know english equivalent. You can use this form,
when you want to say that something was done for you.
EG: "I have my coat washed". It was made for you by laundry.
Please help me!!

"when it's at home?"- I don't know what does it mean.

[soup_nazi]

Gość portalu: licealista napisał(a):

> Nie bardzo to jeszcze rozumiem, a muszę zrozumieć do jutra... Błagam pomocy!!
> Czy moglibyście zmienić te zdania używając w/w formy (tj. have something
> done)
> 1) Somebody stole my suitcase while I was loogking in the other way.

I [have] had my suitcase stolen while I was looking the other way.

> 2) I will ask somebody to install the pipes in the bathroom.

I will have the pipes in the bathroom installed.

> 3) We are going to ask someone to mend the shoes.

We are going to have the shoes mended. (is "mend" irregular ? - haven't used
this one for years now - too lazy to check)

> 4) We pay the people to clean our windows every month.

We pay to have our windows cleaned each month.

[Gość: steph]

Mu suitacase was stolen while I was looking the other way.
I will ask somebody to have the pipes installed in my bathroom.
We are going to ask someone to have our shoes mended.
Every month we pay to have our windows cleaned.

Czy to o to chodzi?

[Gość: [e-mail]]

1)I had my suitcase stolen...
2)I will have the pipes installed in the bathroom.
3)We are going to have the shoes mended.
4)We have our windows cleaned every month.
Good luck!
Jan

[etbl]

Konstrukcja: HAVE + OBJECT + PAST PARTICIPLE CONSTRUCTION ( czyli tzw.III forma
czasownika -chodzi o nieregularne; przy regularnych z koncowka "ed")

I had my suitcase stolen while I was looking the other way.
I am having the pipes installed in the bathroom.
We are having our shoes mended.
We have the windows cleaned every month.

Forme czasu przybiera: "have"

1)
Simple Past Simple Past od "have"=had

stole (II forma) -> had + it + stolen (III forma)

2)
The Future Simple forma "going to" od "have"= am having

will ask -> am having them installed (zamiast "are going to have"
ktore tez jest mozliwe, ale mniej eleganckie)
3)
tzw. forma "be going to" forma "be going to" od "have" are having

are going to ask -> are having (zamiast "are going to have" - ktore rowniez
jest mozliwe, ale stylistycznie mniej poprawne)

4)
The Simple Present The Simple Present od "have" = have (calkiem po prostu)

we pay -> have the windows cleaned

Uzywa sie tej konstrukcji dla celow stylistycznych, by zgrabniej sie wyrazic.

Wazne, by zachowac kolejnosc elementow tej konstrukcji ( by uniknac
nieporozumien w znaczeniu).

Forme "will" zamieniasz na am/is/are having + object + past participle c.

Powodzenia, trzymam kciuki jutro!

[soup_nazi]

etbl napisała:

There's something wrong in this picture.

>> 2) I will ask somebody to install the pipes in the bathroom.

> I am having the pipes installed in the bathroom.

Right now? Why do you change the tense to Present Continuous? It changes the
meaning of the sentence, doesn't it?

>> 3) We are going to ask someone to mend the shoes.

> We are having our shoes mended.

Again, why the tense change? Right now, waiting in the shop?

> We have the windows cleaned every month.
>
> Forme czasu przybiera: "have"
>
> 1)
> Simple Past Simple Past od "have"=had
>
> stole (II forma) -> had + it + stolen (III forma)
>
> 2)
> The Future Simple forma "going to" od "have"= am having
>
> will ask -> am having them installed (zamiast "are going to have"
> ktore tez jest mozliwe, ale mniej eleganckie)
> 3)
> tzw. forma "be going to" forma "be going to" od "have" are having
>
> are going to ask -> are having (zamiast "are going to have" - ktore rowni
> ez
> jest mozliwe, ale stylistycznie mniej poprawne)

Very questionable.

>
> 4)
> The Simple Present The Simple Present od "have" = have (calkiem po
prostu)
>
> we pay -> have the windows cleaned
>
> Uzywa sie tej konstrukcji dla celow stylistycznych, by zgrabniej sie wyrazic.

So you change the meaning of the sentence "by zgrabniej sie wyrazic"? What if
we have our windows cleaned every month by the janitor and we don't have to pay
because it is one of his regular duties? Use of "we will (or any other tense)
have sth. done" does not automatically imply automatically that we have to pay
for that. What now?

>
> Wazne, by zachowac kolejnosc elementow tej konstrukcji ( by uniknac
> nieporozumien w znaczeniu).

Right. Unfortunately you could cause miscommunications because of something
else.
>
> Forme "will" zamieniasz na am/is/are having + object + past participle c.

Why?

Excuse me, but this is a very bookish approach. I'm not buying your
explanations - yes, they're theorethically correct, but... more common sense
and real life! At least in case of AE.

[Gość: etbl]

Dear Soup,

First of all: this is about British English.
Secondly, this construction ( have + object + past participle) is not used in
the Future Simple.
I do not know why. It just is not.
Perhaps because "I will have" sounds like a demand, which is not intended in
our sentence.(ad 2)
Instead, the "be going to" form should be employed to express near future. This
form expresses the subject's intention to perform a given action. An intention
and no more.

Our sentence

"I will ask somebody to install the pipes in the bathroom." indicates:

that I intend to have it done in the near future (I am already talking about
it), as I have already taken the (mental) decision to ask somebody.
So, when transforming the sentence, from the original point to using the "be
going to" form, which does express near future, is not that far.
Thus, there is no significant change of meaning.

ad 3)You have "be going to" form in the original sentence:

"We are going to ask someone to mend the shoes." (It is not the Present
Continuous Tense, although it looks like it.)

The sentence is transformed into:

"We are having our shoes mended." (again, not right now, in the near future)

The sentence above is exactly the same as:

"We are going to have our shoes mended."

The omission of "going to" is made for stylistic reasons.
As in other cases. Compare - instead of:

"I am going to go to London shortly."

we say:

"I am going to London shortly."

It is a similar story with:

"I am going to have..." -> "I am having..."
"I am going to get..." -> "I am getting..."

It does look exactly the same as the Present Continuous Tense.
The correspondence of form does not cause confusion or misunderstanding,
though. And if a small misunderstanding were to arise, well, it would only be
a very slight one, easily corrected by the context.

Now, have a look how easy it is to change the meaning and cause
misunderstanding if you do not observe the exact order of the "have + object +
past participle" construction:

"He had his hair cut."
"He had cut his hair."

See? It may seem obvious to you, but not necessarily to a student of English.
Such a small change ;O)


I hope it does convince you. If not, try reading a grammar handbook.

Regards, and good night

etbl

[soup_nazi]

Thanks for your time. A few remarks though.

Gość portalu: etbl napisał(a):

> Dear Soup,
>
> First of all: this is about British English.

I suspected so. Ironically, the English I learned first was British. Well,
after years in North America, I parted my ways with it somehow. I can even
recall something remotely about this "having" thing.

BTW, it would be a good idea to mark somehow in the posts/headings which
English the authors of the posts/threads refer to. Something like AE/BE.
Sometimes it's it is not relevant, sometimes it is.

> Secondly, this construction ( have + object + past participle) is not used
in
> the Future Simple.
> I do not know why. It just is not.
> Perhaps because "I will have" sounds like a demand, which is not intended in
> our sentence.(ad 2)

See? Nobody in America would ever think that it sounds like a demand. But I
have feeling that I learned that in my British English classes long time ago,
not in America. Are you sure? I know a language is a living thing but it
usually evolves into more simplified forms than the other way around. For
example, when I was studying in the beginning of 80's use of "I don't have"
was an absolute "no no" in BE, and I had an educated native speaker. Now I
could have heard on this forum that it became quite popular in the UK.
> Instead, the "be going to" form should be employed to express near future.
This
>
> form expresses the subject's intention to perform a given action. An
intention
>
> and no more.
>
> Our sentence
>
> "I will ask somebody to install the pipes in the bathroom." indicates:
>
> that I intend to have it done in the near future (I am already talking about
> it), as I have already taken the (mental) decision to ask somebody.
> So, when transforming the sentence, from the original point to using the "be
> going to" form, which does express near future, is not that far.
> Thus, there is no significant change of meaning.
>
> ad 3)You have "be going to" form in the original sentence:
>
> "We are going to ask someone to mend the shoes." (It is not the Present
> Continuous Tense, although it looks like it.)
>
> The sentence is transformed into:
>
> "We are having our shoes mended." (again, not right now, in the near future)
>
> The sentence above is exactly the same as:
>
> "We are going to have our shoes mended."
>
> The omission of "going to" is made for stylistic reasons.
> As in other cases. Compare - instead of:
>
> "I am going to go to London shortly."
>
> we say:
>
> "I am going to London shortly."
>
> It is a similar story with:
>
> "I am going to have..." -> "I am having..."
> "I am going to get..." -> "I am getting..."
>
> It does look exactly the same as the Present Continuous Tense.
> The correspondence of form does not cause confusion or misunderstanding,
> though. And if a small misunderstanding were to arise, well, it would only
be
> a very slight one, easily corrected by the context.
>
> Now, have a look how easy it is to change the meaning and cause
> misunderstanding if you do not observe the exact order of the "have + object
+
> past participle" construction:
>
> "He had his hair cut."
> "He had cut his hair."
>
> See? It may seem obvious to you, but not necessarily to a student of
English.
> Such a small change ;O)
>
>
> I hope it does convince you. If not, try reading a grammar handbook.

You did. Then again, I haven't claimed that you are mistaken. It just sounded
funny. Now I know why. Good, old, limey English, hehehe.

[Gość: steph]

Some incredible theories here. I'm still to meet an English person who has
heard of 'forma kauzatywna' but hey, what do they know. I'm sure all is
revealed in some Polish textbook, just to muddle up the language learning
process.

[Gość: etbl]

Such a grammatical term as "causative use of (HAVE)" does exist, though.
It is quite current, too. In grammar handbooks.

It is the same as the construction "have + object + past participle.

[tynski]

Gość portalu: etbl napisał(a):

>
> First of all: this is about British English.
> Secondly, this construction ( have + object + past participle) is not used in
> the Future Simple.
> I do not know why. It just is not.
> Perhaps because "I will have" sounds like a demand, which is not intended in
> our sentence.(ad 2)

No.

"Dearest, I'll have the darn shoes fixed for you. Please don't hit me!
"Oh, it's nothing. I will have them repaired next time I am in town. Don't
worry, honey."

Are those demands?

"If you don't wise up, I'll have you arrested."
Now, that's a threat.




> Instead, the "be going to" form should be employed to express near future.
This
>
> form expresses the subject's intention to perform a given action. An
intention
>
> and no more.
>
> Our sentence
>
> "I will ask somebody to install the pipes in the bathroom." indicates:
>
> that I intend to have it done in the near future (I am already talking about
> it), as I have already taken the (mental) decision to ask somebody.

You have no way of knowing that.
Saying "I'll ask somebody...," he is making his "mental decision".
There is neither intention nor commitment in his voice.
You are dreaming up things.



> So, when transforming the sentence, from the original point to using the "be
> going to" form, which does express near future, is not that far.
> Thus, there is no significant change of meaning.

Yes, there is a change of your own doing.


> ad 3)You have "be going to" form in the original sentence:
>
> "We are going to ask someone to mend the shoes." (It is not the Present
> Continuous Tense, although it looks like it.)
>
> The sentence is transformed into:
>
> "We are having our shoes mended." (again, not right now, in the near future)
>
> The sentence above is exactly the same as:
>
> "We are going to have our shoes mended."


No. "I am going to do...." does not mean, "I am doing..."
You have upped his mere intention to something more positive.
A tiff: "New pair? Why buy a new pair? We are having these fixed and that's
final."


>
> The omission of "going to" is made for stylistic reasons.


No. That's not stylish - that's etblish.


> As in other cases. Compare - instead of:
>
> "I am going to go to London shortly."
>
> we say:
>
> "I am going to London shortly."

not pertinent.

[Gość: steph]

Just a few comments on the previous diatribe:
1.Since when does 'I will have' sound like demand ??????
2.'I am going to have pipes installed' - mental decision taken ???? How about
physical too if one has already ripped out the old pipes? With or without
committment in one's voice?. Might little tantrum be thrown in for
enforcement of intentions? Has certified plumber been approached? Or should
the adviser be certified - under the Mental Health Act?
Omission of 'going to' made for stylistic reasons - oh really, don't stop
there, endless theories might be applied to build up an ego here

Utter pile of nonsense. How could it all possibly aid anyone's understanding
of how to speak real English? Can't help feeling sorry for the Polish kids
asking for help with their homework and getting some semi-philosophical
outpourings from self-appointed experts. Will I have my head bitten off? It's
a demand after all.

[Gość: etbl]

I was very surprised to see, that my use of the word "mental" caused such a
storm... in a teacup!

The adjective "mental" has several meanings.

It can also mean "relating to the process of thinking".
It can be used in expressions as "mental effort", or "mental development".

If one can say "mental arithmetic" and "to make a mental calculation", one can
also say "mental decision", as I have done. It simply means "involving only
thinking and not physical action".

But what am I doing? Semantics is even more prone to disagreements than
grammar!

Dear Steph,
when learning a foreign language grammar often helps. Helps to understand
foreign structures. Of course it is necessary to know and understand
grammatical terms to start with.
And if you have no, or little, opportunity of practicing your foreign language
with native speakers, you have to find other methods. But even if you have
plenty of practice with native speakers you still need a lot of grammar.
Otherwise it takes ages to learn that foreign language.

"I will have..." does sound like a demand.
You do not go into a baker's shop and say:

"I will have a loaf of bread" - you risk not beeing served.

You say instead:

"I would like a loaf of bread".
"Could I have a couple of scones?"


I was only trying to help Licealista and then (foolishly) to answer Soup's
letter. According to my abilities, bien sur!
Have a nice day, Steph.

[Gość: steph]

Dear etbl, well aware of the meaning of 'mental', just didn't feel it was a
necessary part of explanation. But thanks anyway. As for 'will have', without
wishing to appear contradictory for the sake of it, I have to say that I would
indeed approach my local baker with 'I will have some of your delicious
doughnuts please', if only as a variation on 'may I have ....'. Could it be a
more British form? Anyway, in these days of supermarket shopping the issue
becomes somewhat irrelevant. Nice talking to you. Steph

[soup_nazi]

Gość portalu: etbl napisał(a):


> and then (foolishly) to answer Soup's
> letter.

Pardon me?

[etbl]

No offence, dear Soup.
Sometimes answering a letter you risk a long debate.
If you bother to read the whole discussion here, you will see that my response
to your letter caused an avalanche of reactions from other participants.

Thus "foolishly". Already then I was anticipating a storm.
This Polish forum is a risky business! ;o)

[Gość: etbl]

It is the second time you are trying to draw me into some abstract grammatical
debate.
But I am not interested in any highbrow discussion, you see.
I just wanted to help a grammar school student in distress.

So, you want to rule the English only Forum. But by all means. Do it.
You see with grammar you can always find a counter-example or two. And if at
least a couple of native speakers insist they are correct...

No offence, Tynski, but why not fiding a more academic forum for your
theoretical discussion attempts?

And this was not the purpose of the request from Licealista.
He needed some sentences transformed, employing the causative use of "have".

It is essential to keep things on their practical level.

kind regards, dear Tynski.

[Gość: steph]

My sentiments exactly - practical level of advice for people who ask for it.
Philosophy of the language intricacies best left to those who devote volumes
to the subject, with no obvious benefit to language users.

[etbl]

Widze, ze przy pospiesznym wysylaniu postu, by zdazyl na czas przed klasowka,
przepadly odstepy gdzies sobie, co niestety zmniejsza czytalnosc wyjasnien.
Sprobuje to poprawic.

etbl napisała:

Konstrukcja: HAVE + OBJECT + PAST PARTICIPLE ( czyli tzw.III forma

czasownika -chodzi o nieregularne; przy regularnych z koncowka "ed")

I had my suitcase stolen while I was looking the other way.
I am having the pipes installed in the bathroom.
We are having our shoes mended.
We have the windows cleaned every month.

Forme czasu przybiera: "have"

1)
Simple Past -> Simple Past od "have"=had

stole (II forma) -> had + it + stolen (III forma)

2)
The Future Simple -> forma "going to" od "have" = am having

will ask -> am having them installed (zamiast "are going to have"
ktore tez jest mozliwe, ale mniej eleganckie)
3)
tzw. forma "be going to" -> forma "be going to" od "have" are having

are going to ask -> are having (zamiast "are going to have" - ktore
rowniez jest mozliwe, ale stylistycznie mniej poprawne)

4)
The Simple Present -> The Simple Present od "have" = have (calkiem po prostu)

we pay -> have the windows cleaned

Uzywa sie tej konstrukcji dla celow stylistycznych, by zgrabniej sie wyrazic.

Wazne, by zachowac kolejnosc elementow tej konstrukcji ( by uniknac
nieporozumien w znaczeniu).

Forme "will" zamieniasz na am/is/are having + object + past participle.

Powodzenia, trzymam kciuki pojutrze!

Moze teraz odstepy beda lepsze!

[etbl]

Licealisto,
w moje wyjasnienia wkradl sie byk.

Linia 17:
To jest pod 2)

Powinno byc:

will ask -> am having them installed (zamiast: AM(oczywiscie!) going to
have them installed ...)

I jak widzisz z dyskusji, proste cwiczenie to nie jest wcale proste cwiczenie!
Pan(pani) od angielskiego powinien ten fakt uwzglednic!

keep cool

[Gość: licealista]

Kochani, dziękuję Wam serdecznie!!
Co ja bym bez Was zrobił... Szczególne podziękowania dla etbl- jeszcze się nie
wczytałem, ale wygląda mądrze ;-)
Nie piszę tego jutro, lecz pojutrze, ale jutro ni jak nie dam rady się tego
nauczyć.
Jeszcze raz BARDZO dziękuję
Pozdrawiam bardzo, bardzo, bardzo

[Gość: licealista]

Witajcie Kochani,
Co ja bym bez Was wszystkich zrobił...
Za chwilę ze spokojem sobie poczytam i sie naucze.
Bardzo dziekuje za wsparcie intelektualne, a także te duchowe. Bardzo, bardzo,
bardzo dziękuję.

[Gość: azm2]

Biedna jest teraz młodzież!
Czego was uczą? Przecież chodzi o to, żeby prawidłowo się wyrażać, a nie o to,
żeby wiedzieć, że się akurat buduje formę kauzatywną czy jakąkolwiek inną.

[Gość: licealista]

Uff... już po wszystkim!! Dobrze poszło!!
Jeszcze raz Wam bardzo, bardzo dziękuję
To wszystko dzięki Wam :-)
Pozdrawiam bardzo, bardzo, bardzo