Talk:have to do

Request for verification
Does this have any existence apart from [[have to do with]]? DCDuring TALK 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I'm not totally happy with [[have to do with]] either. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that the have is also superfluous to the meaning? -- A LGRIF  talk 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that to do with has become or is on its way to becoming what we might classify as a preposition?
 * I have been noticing how contributors like to include to, which I was taught to view as associated with the following verb form, in preceding terms. I have assembled a few at Category:English non-constituents, though I'm not sure that the category name is accurate for these. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Striking. I've moved this to [[to do with]], per Algrif's comment (though IMHO usage with "be", as he demonstrates, sounds very British). —Ruakh TALK 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)