Why do we say 'tenc que' if we should say 'he de'?

There are verses that go in one ear and out the other. And there are those that, on any given day, make you stop. The other day, stuck in one of the usual traffic jams on the Mallorcan motorways, I noticed a line from Tobogan, by Zoo: “He had to work it out”. I noticed it because the same group, in Vull, sings: “If someone has to cry, let them cry”. It’s not that the line grated on me, nor was it (obviously!) the first time I had heard it. However, it made me think about the hesitation that still exists today in one of the most emblematic constructions of syntactic grammar.

In Catalan, when we want to express an obligation, a need, or a convenience, the language offers several options. The most common and most recommended, as practically everyone who has studied Catalan at some point knows, is ‘haver de + infinitive’: ‘he de partir’, ‘hem de parlar’, ‘s’han de prendre mesures’. This is the construction that appears in manuals, administrative texts, and the media, but it is also the one we spontaneously use in many situations. Therefore, the line from Vull (“if someone has to cry, let them cry”) does not surprise us from a linguistic point of view.

On the other hand, things change with ToboganThe problem, however, is not so much the verb (‘haver’ or ‘tenir’) as what connects the verb to the infinitive: in ‘Same semantic origin

The problem, however, is not so much the verb ('haver' or 'tenir') as what connects the verb to the infinitive: in 'tenir que', the conjunction 'que' assumes a function that would correspond to the preposition 'de' and, therefore, the norm rejects it. On the other hand, regarding the verb, we must understand that 'haver' and 'tenir' share semantic origin and, for centuries, Catalan used 'tenir de+ infinitive' with the meaning of obligation. Today, however, this periphrasis has lost much vitality and hardly appears in formal registers, although it can still be heard in some dialects and can be found in literary texts.

Another way to express obligation, in some dialects, is the periphrasis 'deure + infinitive'. To understand this, however, we must take into account that periphrases of obligation are only one part of a larger system: that of so-called modal periphrases, which are constructions that indicate whether an action is obligatory, possible, probable, or permitted. When we say 'pots venir demà' (you can come tomorrow), we express a possibility or permission. When we say 'hem de parlar' (we must speak), we express an obligation. And when we state 'deuen ser les quatre' (it must be four o'clock), we formulate a hypothesis.

In practice, 'haver de' is the great periphrasis of obligation in Catalan. However, this does not mean that it cannot indicate other things. On the one hand, it can have a value of probability or inference. For example, if someone says that Pau'ha de' ser a casa (must be at home) because the windows are open and the lights are on, they are not stating that Pau has the obligation to be there, but rather deducing that he is there from some clues. On the other hand, it can also indicate a prediction that we consider quite probable, as when we say that on the radio they said that 'ha de' ploure (it is going to rain).

to do many things’ remain outside the standard.

Zoo sings “he This has not always been the case. With a meaning of obligation, 'deure + infinitive' was used for centuries and is still preserved in some Valencian dialects. However, in the rest of the linguistic domain, this use has been receding and 'deure' has become mainly associated with probability. It is curious to observe how the same periphrasis can change its function over time and end up occupying a completely different space.

Perífrasi d’obligació

and “if anyone has to cry, let them cry” to tinc que fer feina’ or ‘encara hi ha que fer moltes coses’ continue to remain outside the standard.

Zoo sings “ell se ho va tindre que currar” in Tobogan and “si ha de plorar algú, que ploren ells” in Vull. It was a small, almost accidental difference (perhaps the result of boredom) that made me pay attention the other day. However, between these two constructions there are centuries of history, changes in usage, and some grammatical debates that, it seems, we have not yet finished resolving.