Jaka to konstrukcja zdania

What would have me do with... jak to przetlumaczyć i jak to reguła gramatyczna?

What would [you] have me do with... jak to przetlumaczyć i jak to reguła gramatyczna?

Co chcesz, zebym zrobil z...

>What would have me do with...

What would have me do with... a clunker like this?= What would cause me to make use of/want... a clunker like this? (I want a bimmer.)

What is a bimmer?
What is love?

What would have me do with ~ what am I to do with - wedle mego zrozumienia...Co robic z, co mam zrobic z

What (=what factors, e.g., what force/what agent/what need/what reason/what obligation…, in a word, WHAT) would have you repeat this nonsense?

You keep confusing people.

I could do with more money.
I could do with three four-hour workdays a week.

...do with = enjoy the benefits of... gain advantage from...make use of...

Mr Gab - do you really think the causative form of 'have' in question is appropriate there? I don't, for it doesn't make much sense to me.
:|

'What would make me do with sth?' is an absolutely better choice.

'What would have me do with the gift the fire gods gave me? Light incense all day? NO THANK YOU! Why sip from a tea cup when you can drink deep from the river...'
- edmond rostand

So, how to translate it into Polish?

You have also similar biblical phrase: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...

>Mr Gab - do you really think the causative form of 'have' in question
>is appropriate there? I don't, for it doesn't make much sense to me.
>:|

Your sense of sense is a mess.

>'What would make me do with sth?' is an absolutely better choice.

It absolutely isn't.
"'Have her come to dinner tonight" doesn’t mean "Make her come to dinner tonight."
The first one deals with giving motives and reasons; the other is about effecting results.

You have just effected one:
This and other unsolicited opinions of yours make me wonder what would have you think you have any right (read qualification) whatsoever to opine on these matters at all.

>"'Have her come to dinner tonight" doesn't mean "Make her come to
>dinner tonight."
>The first one deals with giving motives and reasons; the other is
>about effecting results.

Would there be any difference in the Polish translation?


>(...) what would have you think you have any right (read qualification) whatsoever to opine on these matters at all.

What about you (just out of curiosity)?

Dear Gab,
Thank you (on behalf of all) for making the point clear, but surely, there's no need to be so arrogant about it, is there? Your icy comments are giving people the chills, so chill...

>"'Have her come to dinner tonight" doesn't mean "Make her come to
>dinner tonight."
>The first one deals with giving motives and reasons; the other is
>about effecting results.

That's true - they're slightly different in meaning.

However, you didn't get the point, I'm afraid. You can't say 'something has somebody do something' - it's quite irrational except for the excerpts taken from the Bible, for instance. You can also see such usage in prose, of course.

'have somebody do something' is basically reserved for arrangements made by other people, or for telling somebody to do something:

I'll have the porter bring your baggage up right away, sir.
Bill had the waiter bring the bill.

If you really want to convey a similar meaning with 'something having somebody do something else' than it is advisable that you use other verbs of causativeness, like 'make'. :)

>This and other unsolicited opinions of yours >make me wonder what would have you think you >have any right (read qualification) whatsoever >to opine on these matters at all.

again the same problem 'what would have you think'...

Answering your question of 'having any right to opine on something' - the same factor making you think you've got the right to opine on anything, which is 'freedom of speech' obviously. :)

Besides, I seem to be reading more than you, Mr Gab! :~ (cheeky! I am)

>That's true - they're slightly different in meaning.
In what way?

Jako, ze ja wciaz sie ucze i jestem na o wiele nizszym poziomie znajomosci jezyka angielskiego, czy ktos moze mi lopatologicznie wyjasnic, czy moje tlumaczenie jest poprawne, a jak nie to dlaczego?

Here's the the link to the paper that may change your point of view, Mr Gab.

http://minimalism.linguistics.arizona.edu/AMSA/PDF/AMSA-147-0900.pdf

czy ktos moze mi lopatologicznie
>wyjasnic, czy moje tlumaczenie jest poprawne, a jak nie to dlaczego?

niestety dokument przeze mnie polecony jest bardzo trudny w czytaniu, wiec nie przyda sie za bardzo w lopatologicznym przedstawieniu roznic owych konstrukcji
moze ktos inny sie znajdzie, i zapoda to w przystepny sposob
;|

Gab ma racje. Roznica jest znaczaca.
do pakk
>Would there be any difference in the Polish translation?

Mniej wiecej taka (ale to nie szablon), jak miedzy zdaniami:
cos zmusilo Cie do zrobienia czegos a cos pchnelo Cie do zrobienia czegos.

Mowiac w jezyku polskim tez czasami uzycie slowa pchnac (kogos do czegos), albo synonimu jest jedynym prawidlowo i logicznie brzmiacym zwrotem.
np: wrodzona odwaga pchnela go do bohaterskich czynow.
nie napiszemy, ze wrodzona odwaga zmusila do bohaterskich czynow, bo kazdy Polak native stwiedzi, ze to brzmi dziwnie.

>If you really want to convey a similar meaning with 'something having somebody do something else' than it is advisable that you use other verbs of causativeness, like 'make'. :)

Uzycie make zmienia przeslanie. Od razu sugeruje, ze podmiot nie kierowal sie jakimis racjami, wlasnymi cechami charakteru czy tym co uwaza za sluszne, ale byl do tego zmuszony przez czynniki zewnetrzne np. kogos wywierajacego presje. Have oznacza raczej z wlasnej woli a make wrecz przecinie.

sprawa wyglada tak, ze 'make sb do sth' ma tak naprawde dwa charakerystyczne znaczenia:

1. make sb do sth = compel/force
My parents didn't make clean my room.

2. make sb do sth = cause
What made you say that?

a sprawa roznicy pomiedzy 'make' a 'have' to dosc rozlegly temat
:|

ale 'odwaga pchnęła go do bohaterskich czynów'
to nie jest to samo co
'his courage had him perform heroic deeds'
zdanie angielskie znaczy, że on nie panował nad tym, co robił.

do engee:
pewnie, ze to temat rzeka. na upartego mozna napisac nawet fajna prace na ten temat:) Chcialem tylko pobieznie podac jakis charakterystyczny przyklad.
do mg:
1. przeciez napisalem, ze to po polsku, aby uwydatnic roznice w uzyciu tych slow. To jest dobry przyklad ukazujacy odmiennosc.
2. 'his courage had him perform heroic deeds' dlaczego sadzisz, ze nie panowal?Wg mnie to zdanie wskazuje wlasnie na dobrowolnosc.

porownaj
had him perform
i
led him to perform

>porownaj
>had him perform
>i
>led him to perform

ale co tu porownywac, to tak jakbym ja napisal:
Porownaj:
co go pchnelo;
co nim kierowalo;
co nim powodowalo
z takich prownan nic nie wynika.
w tym temacie chodzi chyba raczej o roznice miedzy konstrukcjami w ktorych wystepuje have i make

Every soldier knew it! ‘LION’ was considered a suicide mission. No one was to have survived, seeing that Germans had mobilised every single unit. They stayed alert day and night, knowing that this island was of crucial importance.
'Get there and render that cannon useless, it will help us save many lives during the assault' gen. Simon said. 'Any volunteers?'

Bill, despite of being only nineteen was not afraid of fight. Apparently, he was not even afraid of being killed. This young corporal was always in the fray.
His inborn courage had him perform great deeds in the past.
' I'll go' said without hesitation.
General raised his eyebrow.’ So young and so brave, it was his courage what had him volunteer for this mission right now’.

Bill zrobil to swiadomie, nie byl zmuszany ani nie wpadl w stan, ktory wskazywalby na niemoznosc kierowania swoim postepowaniem.

ale mamy i takie przyklady:
Knight’s temper has him. in trouble again

No, ja mysle, ze odbijamy od tematu.
przyznalem thegab racje i podalem wlasny przyklad (fakt, ze po polsku), na czym polega roznica w uzyciu konstrukcji z have i make a tu juz wpadamy w/na manowce przerzucajac sie interpretacja. Tamto zdanie nalezalo rozpatrywac w kontekscie uzycia have/make, czy zmienia sens zdania czy nie.

gwoli scislosci
>Knight's temper has him. in trouble again znaczy raczej, ze rycerz znowu dal sie poniesc emocjom czy stracil opanowanie i sam wpakowal sie w klopoty.

To zdanie w rzeczywistosci nie traktuje o powodach zachowania sie rycerza. Nie ma ono zwiazku z kwestia.

gwoli scislosci
>Knight's temper has him. in trouble again znaczy raczej, ze rycerz znowu dal sie poniesc emocjom czy stracil opanowanie i sam wpakowal sie w klopoty.

wlasnie o to mi chodzilo - ze 'have sbd do sth' moze _tez_ oznaczac, ze ktos nie podejmuje decytzji swiadomie, tylko powoduje nim cos, co jest poza jego kontrola.

Ale zgadzam sie, ze pierwotny watek chyba sie rozmyl.

>Knight's temper has him. in trouble
ale tu nie ma has him do,

Knight's temper has him go further, attack or whatever brzmi nie, ze go ponioslo, ale pchnelo do akcji.
Knight's temper has him. in trouble- w sensie ponioslo go - tu brak najwazniejszego motywu, nie ma napisane do czego.

To sa dwa odmiennie brzmiace zdania. jedne bierze pod uwage motyw, drugie o tym nie wspomina.
jedno jest pewne, przynajmniej dla mnie, gdy mowie have- mowie o czyms co kims powoduje, sklania kogos do czegos. Make- raczej pod przymusem.

A takie dwa zdania:

I had my son learn. przekonalem
I made my son learn. zmusilem

thegab pisze noca, on zaczal temat, wiec pewnie sie jeszcze ustosunkuje.
pozdrawiam wszystkich!

>there's no need to be so arrogant about it, is there?

I can't believe this. Arrogant? Moi? You must be kidding.
Chutzpah of an ignorant perspires every freaking pore of his miserable self and you call
me arrogant?
Get hold of yourself milady, will you?

>I had my son learn. przekonalem
>I made my son learn. zmusilem

I missed that. YOU GOT IT.

I guess I'm trying to reason with the unreasonable here. Oh well...
My point is: it is a shame that someone as obviously knowledgeable and smart as yourself has a tendency to get so personal and insulting at times.
Example: your sense of sense is a mess, his miserable self, etc, etc.
Why do that? So some people don't know quite as much as you. So what?

Knight's temper has him go further, attack or whatever brzmi nie, ze go ponioslo, ale pchnelo do akcji.

Pytanie - czy on tego chciał? Wg mnie nie chcial, ale to zalezy od konkretnego podmiotu i dopelnienia

courage had him perform great deeds - skutek dobroczynny
temper had him attack - skutek niekorzystny i tu powiedzialbym, ze rycerz nie panowal nad swoim temperamentem, nie kontrolowal go.

>Knight's temper has him. in trouble- w sensie ponioslo go - tu brak >najwazniejszego motywu, nie ma napisane do czego.

e, znaczenie jest takie samo:
w poprzednich zdaniach - because of his temper, he attacked, etc.
Tutaj:
because of his temper, (he did something and now) he is in trouble - tu jest skrót myślowy (zamiast czynu sa opisane konsekwencje), ale chodzi mi o to, ze on nie chcial znalezc sie w klopocie.

> So some people don't know quite as much as you. So what?

so he's a rocket scientist, but you're right.. where the hell's his warmth for chrissake? ;)

Okay, so you're a rocket scientist
That don't impress me much
So you got the brain but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much
because music can soften rocks and rocket scientists ;)

>Knight's temper has him go further, attack or whatever brzmi nie, ze go >ponioslo, ale pchnelo do akcji.

>Pytanie - czy on tego chciał? Wg mnie nie chcial, ale to zalezy od konkretnego >podmiotu i dopelnienia

>courage had him perform great deeds - skutek dobroczynny
>temper had him attack - skutek niekorzystny i tu powiedzialbym, ze rycerz nie >panowal nad swoim temperamentem, nie kontrolowal go.

>Knight's temper has him. in trouble- w sensie ponioslo go - tu brak >najwazniejszego motywu, nie ma napisane do czego.

>e, znaczenie jest takie samo:
>w poprzednich zdaniach - because of his temper, he attacked, etc.
>Tutaj:
>because of his temper, (he did something and now) he is in trouble - tu jest >skrót myślowy (zamiast czynu sa opisane konsekwencje), ale chodzi mi o to, ze >on nie chcial znalezc sie w klopocie.

Jednak wpadlismy w bledne kolo, zdanie z odwaga nie jest najlepszym przykladem w j. angileskim. Uzylem go w j. polskim ( tu jest ok) bez intencji tlumaczenia ale sam pociagnales i tak wyszlo.

Ja sie jednak upieram, ze swiadomosc jest wazna. O ile z odwaga to idzie w parze to nigdy bym nie uzyl tej konstrukcji z rzeczownikami typu greed, anger, hate, ktore w pewnym sensie wykluczaja brak calkowitego kierowania poczynaniem. Tu bym uzyl to force czy wlasnie to lead.
Mysle, ze duze znaczenie ma tez pozytywnosc calego zdarzenia. Negatywnosc wyrazilbym wlasnie uzywajac to lead czy to force, co jest odejsciem od konstrukcji. Przy czym pozytywnosc, negatywnosc rozpatrywana z punktu widzenia podmiotu.