6

I had John return the video for me.

In this sentence, why do we use return and not returns or returned?

Cerberus - Reinstate Monica
  • 61,585
Emie
  • 61

6 Answers6

8

This sentence is an example of an indirect command or request. Such sentences are considered by some grammarians to be an example of the subjunctive, which in this case appears as the verb itself. (This is what I was taught in grade school.)

Others (see comments) argue that this need not be classified as subjunctive, but rather as a use of the infinitive:

... we would use him in the same construction: I had him return the video for me. This means there is no subordinate clause with omitted that (*I had [that] he return the video), but rather a simple object (him) + infinitive (return). The fact that you can't add that supports the same conclusion. — Cerberus.

Whatever the explanation, this usage is not dependent on the tense of the main verb of the sentence, which can be future, past or present.

Other examples of indirect commands:

His mother demanded he be home by 12. (Past)

The doctor has patients provide a detailed medical history. (Present)

Henry will insist we come early to the party. (Future)

Cerberus - Reinstate Monica
  • 61,585
  • 2
    For me, that link is an example of the egregious nonsense which people concoct when they insist on pretending that English grammar is a sort of poor relation of Latin grammar. – Colin Fine Oct 07 '11 at 09:35
  • Fair enough. That was in no way meant to be an endorsement of the website itself (which I must admit to not having read), but rather an easily accessible explanation of the subjunctive in this situation. Personally, I don't think my explanation requires any Latin or interest in Latin - I learned the above as a grammar rule in grade school. If you have an explanation that somehow gives the English language its proper due (?), I'd be happy to see it. –  Oct 07 '11 at 10:03
  • 2
    Also fair enough. I was so incensed at that site I didn't pay attention to your answer :) My argument here is that since the (present) subjunctive is indistinguishable from the infinitive for all verbs in Modern English (even 'be') I would prefer to treat this as the infinitive (without 'to'). I would regard "I had him build a house" as indistinguishable in structure from "I saw him build a house". I accept that this would not have been the case in earlier stages of the language. – Colin Fine Oct 07 '11 at 11:36
  • There is no past or future subjunctive in English, and the OP’s example contains no subjunctive at all. The construction is past tense of 'have' + the plain form of the main verb.

    I quite agree about that site, Colin. I have seen a lot of nonsense written about the subjunctive, but never have I see it written so extensively.

     – Barrie England Oct 07 '11 at 12:03
  • I've removed the offending link. The explanation, though, still stands. This is how I was taught to understand indirect commands, as a variation of the subjunctive. I really am open to better explanations. –  Oct 07 '11 at 12:27
  • 4
    I think the link was absolutely fine. I do not understand why people must force their terminology on others. The crusade against the subjunctive makes links between past and present usage of English harder to follow, and also the links between English and other modern languages where the subjunctive is still used more extensively. I don't like prescriptivists to tell me that I may not use the term subjunctive, which has served us well for centuries. It is like demolishing a medieval church because you happen to have chosen a different religion which favours bungalows. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 12 '11 at 23:05
  • @Cindi: That is traditionally called the past subjunctive, yes. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 12 '11 at 23:12
  • That said, I wouldn't say this return was a subjunctive, but rather an infinitive, because we would use him in the same construction: I had him* return the video for me.* This means there is no subordinate clause with omitted that (*I had [that] he return the video), but rather a simple object (him) + infinitive (return). The fact that you can't add that supports the same conclusion. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 12 '11 at 23:16
  • 1
    @Cerberus "subjunctive" is traditionally used to refer to forms that are descended from the Old English subjunctive. But this is not. This is a much more modern construction. It might descend from the Middle English causative with the infinitive, as in:

    Jesus Christ, who makede to go þe halte "Jesus Christ, who made the lame to walk"

     – morphail Oct 13 '11 at 16:27
  • @morphail: I know; did you see my second comment above? And my answer below? – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Oct 13 '11 at 22:07
  • @Cerberus Sorry. I wasn't reading closely enough. – morphail Oct 14 '11 at 00:16
  • Hey, I came across this question again, and noticed that you referred to my comment; I took the liberty of inserting the bit that you referred to. If you disagree, feel free to re-edit. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 11 '12 at 01:31
  • @Cerberus #1&3 are instances of the mandative subjunctive; you can tell because there’s an elided ‘that’. The middle is not really a subjunctive at all, but just a direct object that’s an infinitive with a dative of interest added. I can’t think of any situations for this causative sort of thing in English where it isn’t using a verb that means to make or do, as in to have someone do something. I make you eat it, I’ll make you sing, I’ll have you run faster. I’ll have you call mom. Those are normal infinitive verbal phrases as the D.O. The you is an indirect object, or dative of interest. – tchrist Jan 11 '12 at 02:20
  • @BarrieEngland How then would you distinguish ‘I requested that she be* here early.’* and ‘Lest it be* forgotten.’* from ‘I wish she were* here already.’* and ‘If only it were* so.’* ? Isn’t easier to talk about present and past subjunctives than to talk about mandative and optative moods? Just curious. I realize there are different ways to look at these, but I don’t know what’s wrong with using the Romance-style terms for these. I agree with you that English has no future subjunctive, although the hypothetical optative stuff gets weird. – tchrist Jan 11 '12 at 02:27
  • @tchrist: I agree in all respects. I had pleaded for the infinitive in my answer below. I only dealt with the OP's example, not with Ono's examples, which I analyse exactly as you do. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 11 '12 at 05:44
  • @tchrist: ‘I requested that she be here early’ is an example of the mandative subjunctive and ‘Lest it be forgotten’ is an example of the formulaic subjunctive. For the use of ‘were’ which you illustrate, I’d be inclined to follow the example Huddleston and Pullum, authors of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’, and not call this use of ‘were’ subjunctive at all, but rather irrrealis-‘were’. – Barrie England Jan 11 '12 at 09:21
2

It is because, Emie, this construction requires the non-finite form of the verb, return, and non-finite forms don't inflect for tense or number or person.

Barrie England
  • 140,205
2

That is because return is an infinitive:

  • I had John return the video for me.
  • I had him return the video for me.

If you substitute him, it becomes clearer that this is a simple main clause with an object him. (The object functions as the thematic patient of the finite verb had and as the agent of the infinitive return.) There is no particular reason that I know of why the verb to have should use this construction when it means you are causing someone to do something. Perhaps one can be dug up from pre-modern usage.

The same construction is used with similar verbs:

  • I had him return the video for me.
  • I made him return the video for me.
  • I bade him return the video for me. — Old fasioned.
  • I told him to return the video for me.
  • I caused him to return the video for me.
  • I forced him to return the video for me.

With the verbs to tell, to cause, and to force, you can see that the infinitive with to is used instead of the bare infinitive. I don't see how this construction could be interpreted differently. If it had been a subjunctive, he would have been used instead of him, because there would be a subordinate clause with omitted that:

*I had [that] he return the video for me.

This is plainly ungrammatical.

Cerberus - Reinstate Monica
  • 61,585
1

Return is the command form of return. E.g. "Return that which you have taken from me!"

When you have someone return something, you are implicitly using a command. This is because I had him X is synonymous to I required him to fulfil the command that he X.

Centigonal
  • 490
  • I think you mean the imperative, but I don't believe that's what it is here. You're almost giving the answer yourself: require is a different but similar construction, and it uses to fulfil, an infinitive. I had him fulfil my command is quite close to I required him to fulfil my command. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 11 '12 at 01:56
0

The verb had doesn't need to agree with the verb return. What you are saying is that at (some point in the past) you instructed John to return a video for you. John returning the video is still a present/future action at the time that you gave John the video to be returned.

Joel Brown
  • 5,593
0

You can stick another verb in there without subject inflection. "I had John cook a video for me".

To inflect it would result in something similar to the execrable (but cromulent) "needs painted."

Tricia
  • 1
  • 2
    I think you mean "the grammatical-in-some-dialects-but-not-standard-English 'needs painted'". – Colin Fine Oct 07 '11 at 09:32
  • @ColinFine: For many people, that's exactly the same as "execrable (but cromulent)" that the OP used. :-) Don't try to force a linguist's non-subjectivity on others; "civilian" people are entitled to have their opinions and tastes. (I don't have any opinion on "needs painted", FWIW, but I feel entitled to have one.) – ShreevatsaR Oct 13 '11 at 03:03
  • @ShreevatsaR: Yes, and I'm entitled to have my own opinions and express my disagreement with others'. – Colin Fine Oct 13 '11 at 10:30
  • @ColinFine: Glad we agree. :-) – ShreevatsaR Oct 13 '11 at 13:08