Talk:zu haben

RFC discussion
This was added to Requests for cleanup by User:Atelaes today. IMO, it should be a request for deletion instead, because few people would look up this combination of words. hast should have an entry as an inflected form of haben, and haben should describe that in combination with the preposition zu, it has the meaning to have to (maybe with a stronger meaning). i think, that even in the base form (which is non obvious to me: zu haben? haben zu?) this word combination wouldn't be an entry in a German dictionary. --Zeitlupe 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this should be deleted, or at least moved to haben zu (to have to). hast is just the 2nd-person singular present tense of haben. —Stephen 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * hast du (do you have?) is much more common, almost sounds like a misspelling / typo of that one. Mutante 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

zu haben is the infinitive of this verb phrase. It's a common phrase in Germany and of sure it has a stronger meaning. It has nothing to do with the hast du. it has an entry in a German dictionary:
 * Der kleine Wahrig Page 433 (der kleine wahrig is after the Duden the most popular dictionary in Germany.) 62.214.203.252 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NB: moved to zu haben. — Beobach 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2020
I don't think there's much to save in this entry, at least not in the verb section.


 * 1. must, have to
 * Comment: I think the verb here is "haben" and not "zu haben". For example:
 * This could be compared to "zu brauchen", which we appropriately don't have. For example:
 * 2. be closed
 * Comment: Here the verb is actually . For example:
 * 3.
 * Comment: That's correct, but how much do we need this piece of information?
 * 3.
 * Comment: That's correct, but how much do we need this piece of information?
 * Comment: That's correct, but how much do we need this piece of information?

The adjective section would benefit of a usage example. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of usexes for the adjective. I agree that sense 1 is in the wrong place; that should be either at or at . I also agree that sense 2 is spelled, and that sense 3 is worth only an &lit. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted as one-time IP cruft (of a Dortmund IP in 2008, but presumably a foreigner or a clueless child); beyond verification it was to be deleted because it is formally wrong, and Hekaheka rightly found it misleading. Wrong segmentation, as said; in the first case the zu belongs to the other verb and the usage has to be covered by, and in the second it is to be written together (because of being considered from the prefix ); in the third I think we don’t create “zu infinitives” that are written apart. The adjective sense is correct but may be SOP (compare zu verkaufen, zu gebrauchen, zu tadeln, whatever; one does not use in such a way; maybe it should be reflected on ; it is difficult to cover that difference in a dictionary). Fay Freak (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * One of the meanings of zu + infinitive is to assert the possibility of the action being performed on the subject to which this is a complement, in English often expressed with : Das ist zu tun – “That is doable”; Dieses Wasser ist nicht zu trinken! Bäh! – “This water is undrinkable! Yuck!”; Essen zu mitnehmen – ”takeout food“. The latter is very close to zu haben. This meaning is not listed for the particle . --Lambiam 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it potential, or passive? I'd always understood it to be more like a passive, or objective, or maybe even like certain English infinitives, but I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
 * Dieses Wasser ist nicht zu trinken → "This water is not to be drunken", or "This water is not for drinking", no? I've even heard the word-for-word version, "This water is not to drink".  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this construction is the German way of forming a gerundive and can be translated into English with a passive infinitive, though that's not always very idiomatic in English. In English, we really don't say "to be had" to mean "available" in cases like the example sentences I added to zu haben yesterday. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)