"have + to" versus "have + object + to + V&qu

What do you think of this?

I have to write a letter. (The obligation is the result of another’s direct command or direction.)

I have a letter to write. (The obligation does not result from the command of another, but rather is a self-imposed task: it means ‘to be burdened with’ or ‘to feel it incumbent on oneself’.)

Visser (1969).

The title should read:

"have + to" versus "have + object + to + V"

Isn't it the same with "I have to tell you something" and "I have something to tell you"?

How about "I have to be responsible for my client's welfare." and "I have a responsibility to my client's welfare"?

"responsibility FOR my client's welfare" but yes, apart from that, the last two are also correct.

I wasn't asking if they were correct. I was saying that they are similar to the one's above.

<<What do you think of this?>>

Maybe that happens to be true in many cases, but there is no reason why it should always be so, and therefore there's no such rule.
Now I need to go. I still have nearly 100 bombs to defuse, and it's not a self-imposed task. I would rather go home and tell the lieutenant to go to hell, but you can't argue with lieutenants, can you?

"I have a letter to write" gives more of a suggestion that you have a specific letter that you have to write, while "I have to write a letter" is more ambiguous. I would say the difference is not on where the obligation comes from, but where it is focused. In "I have a letter to write", the focus is on the letter. You have a letter, and what you're doin with it is writing. In "I have to write a letter", the focus is on writing. You're writing, and the thing you're writing is a letter.

In this case, it is a slight difference, but in other cases it can be a clear distinction. For instance, "There's a woman that I'm looking for" means that you're looking for a specific woman. "I'm looking for a woman" could mean that there's a specific woman that you're looking for, or it could just mean that you're out looking to pick up women.

Interesting but ........

"I have another point to make."
"I have to make another point."

"He has an axe to grind."
"He has to grind an axe."

"I have a ... to ..." doesn't necessarily imply obligation at all. For instance, "I have a fund to see me through rough patches".

With "I have an axe to grind", that's an idiom, so it's not a valid comparison.

You have to pick a bone with me?
I know - just trying to be a bit light-hearted. I'm sure there are lots of other examples that show that the similarity in some of those 'mirrored' constructions doesn't provide the substance to form any kind of useful connection for learners.

He has a lot to say for himself = ??????

He has a lot to say for himself = ??????

No futurity there. Nothing pending.

Note:

He has letters to write.
He has mouths to feed.
She has places to go and people to meet.

It seems each form displays less or more pure possession, and the ones with more abstract possession often express modality alongside.

I think that actually, "I have a letter to write" is short for "I have a letter that I have to write".

Noted stages in the development of "have to" from "have + object + to V".

Stage 1: "have" (full verb) expressed pure possession.

Quote: This construction is still in use in Modern English when "the idea of ‘having’ is clearly felt to be present in have" (van der Gaaf 1931: 186; also Visser 1969: 1475).'

Stage 2: "have" became semantically weakened - meanings of possession and obligation or duty existing side-by-side.

Regarding that stage, some feel "have" means "to have as a duty or thing to be done’.

Quote: The construction continues to exist in Modern English, according to van der Gaaf (1931: 186) and Visser (1969: 1477).

Stage 3: the possessive semantics of "have" are completely bleached; it expresses duty or obligation exclusively.

Stage 4: , "have", now grammaticalized as an auxiliary of modality, begins to occur with intransitive infinitives.