Haf and have

[Arnold Zwicky]

larry horn:
 >On some accounts, there's a trace in the first member of each of
 >these pairs, but in any case they involve not the lexical item
 >"hafta" = 'must' (more or less), but real main verb "have".  I'll
 >bet Arnold can give us references on where this is all discussed in
 >the literature.

the central item is:

Pullum, Geoffrey K.  1997.  The morpholexical nature of English
to-contraction.  Lg 73.79-102.

it has references to much other literature, including the remarkable
exchanges on the trace issue.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)