to have something to do with
- A has something to do with B
- B has something to do with A
Are #1 and #2 interchangeable?
I mean, is #1 equal to #2 or is there a difference? If there's a difference then what is the difference?
meaning expressions idioms
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
add a comment |
- A has something to do with B
- B has something to do with A
Are #1 and #2 interchangeable?
I mean, is #1 equal to #2 or is there a difference? If there's a difference then what is the difference?
meaning expressions idioms
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
Have you looked up the phrase "has something to do with"? That might be a good place to start...does it mean they're the same?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:18
1
@KristinaLopez I looked and it says "used for saying that something is related to something else,". Then #1 = #2. But I'm not sure
– CITBL
Feb 27 '18 at 19:21
Implication and logic are not really the same thing. That said, if A has to do with B, then, B could not not have something to do with A. A implies B, does not mean: B implies A, in logic.
– Lambie
Aug 1 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
- A has something to do with B
- B has something to do with A
Are #1 and #2 interchangeable?
I mean, is #1 equal to #2 or is there a difference? If there's a difference then what is the difference?
meaning expressions idioms
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
- A has something to do with B
- B has something to do with A
Are #1 and #2 interchangeable?
I mean, is #1 equal to #2 or is there a difference? If there's a difference then what is the difference?
meaning expressions idioms
meaning expressions idioms
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
asked Feb 27 '18 at 19:04
CITBL
1061
1061
Have you looked up the phrase "has something to do with"? That might be a good place to start...does it mean they're the same?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:18
1
@KristinaLopez I looked and it says "used for saying that something is related to something else,". Then #1 = #2. But I'm not sure
– CITBL
Feb 27 '18 at 19:21
Implication and logic are not really the same thing. That said, if A has to do with B, then, B could not not have something to do with A. A implies B, does not mean: B implies A, in logic.
– Lambie
Aug 1 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
Have you looked up the phrase "has something to do with"? That might be a good place to start...does it mean they're the same?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:18
1
@KristinaLopez I looked and it says "used for saying that something is related to something else,". Then #1 = #2. But I'm not sure
– CITBL
Feb 27 '18 at 19:21
Implication and logic are not really the same thing. That said, if A has to do with B, then, B could not not have something to do with A. A implies B, does not mean: B implies A, in logic.
– Lambie
Aug 1 '18 at 15:17
Have you looked up the phrase "has something to do with"? That might be a good place to start...does it mean they're the same?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:18
Have you looked up the phrase "has something to do with"? That might be a good place to start...does it mean they're the same?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:18
1
1
@KristinaLopez I looked and it says "used for saying that something is related to something else,". Then #1 = #2. But I'm not sure
– CITBL
Feb 27 '18 at 19:21
@KristinaLopez I looked and it says "used for saying that something is related to something else,". Then #1 = #2. But I'm not sure
– CITBL
Feb 27 '18 at 19:21
Implication and logic are not really the same thing. That said, if A has to do with B, then, B could not not have something to do with A. A implies B, does not mean: B implies A, in logic.
– Lambie
Aug 1 '18 at 15:17
Implication and logic are not really the same thing. That said, if A has to do with B, then, B could not not have something to do with A. A implies B, does not mean: B implies A, in logic.
– Lambie
Aug 1 '18 at 15:17
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
AS CED says, be/have something to do with something is ill-defined:
be/have something to do with something informal
C1 to be related to something or a cause of something but not in a
way that you know about or understand exactly:
I'm not sure what he does exactly - it's something to do with finance.
(ie is related to finance. Here, 'finance has something to do with what he does' doesn't sound idiomatic. Probably because 'finance' is the wider field, 'what he does' a small part or small overlapping area. But with 'equivalents', like 'locks have something to do with keys', the A and B are reversible.)
..........
It [the fact that it is brittle] might have something to do with the way it's made.
(ie It might be something that results from how it's made.)
In this case, 'The way it's made might have something to do with it being so brittle' (the reverse causative; CED does not give the 'or be caused by something' sense) seems to work.
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
add a comment |
1) Implication in logic is one thing; a way two things relate to each other, the relationship they have to each other:
In logic, if A → B, that does not mean B → A.
→= implies.
However, A and B do have something to do with each other. Their relationship is that A implies B and B is implied by A. And, B may even imply A, but, as given here, it does not. They have a logical relationship (in formal logic).
2) A relationship in language between two things is not the same thing. Neither is the relationship between things as referents (real things).
The term houses (A) has something to do with construction (B).
Clearly A has something to do with B, B has something to do with A, and they both have something to do with each other. However, the relationship between them is not logical. It's a number of things that exist in reality (as referents) and some other number of things that can be linguistic. A relationship is not necessarily logical, though "a logic" can arise from a relationship.
I hope I have not got my knickers all twisted up here. :)
In other words, to have to do with something means to have a relationship with or to.
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f433185%2fto-have-something-to-do-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
AS CED says, be/have something to do with something is ill-defined:
be/have something to do with something informal
C1 to be related to something or a cause of something but not in a
way that you know about or understand exactly:
I'm not sure what he does exactly - it's something to do with finance.
(ie is related to finance. Here, 'finance has something to do with what he does' doesn't sound idiomatic. Probably because 'finance' is the wider field, 'what he does' a small part or small overlapping area. But with 'equivalents', like 'locks have something to do with keys', the A and B are reversible.)
..........
It [the fact that it is brittle] might have something to do with the way it's made.
(ie It might be something that results from how it's made.)
In this case, 'The way it's made might have something to do with it being so brittle' (the reverse causative; CED does not give the 'or be caused by something' sense) seems to work.
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
add a comment |
AS CED says, be/have something to do with something is ill-defined:
be/have something to do with something informal
C1 to be related to something or a cause of something but not in a
way that you know about or understand exactly:
I'm not sure what he does exactly - it's something to do with finance.
(ie is related to finance. Here, 'finance has something to do with what he does' doesn't sound idiomatic. Probably because 'finance' is the wider field, 'what he does' a small part or small overlapping area. But with 'equivalents', like 'locks have something to do with keys', the A and B are reversible.)
..........
It [the fact that it is brittle] might have something to do with the way it's made.
(ie It might be something that results from how it's made.)
In this case, 'The way it's made might have something to do with it being so brittle' (the reverse causative; CED does not give the 'or be caused by something' sense) seems to work.
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
add a comment |
AS CED says, be/have something to do with something is ill-defined:
be/have something to do with something informal
C1 to be related to something or a cause of something but not in a
way that you know about or understand exactly:
I'm not sure what he does exactly - it's something to do with finance.
(ie is related to finance. Here, 'finance has something to do with what he does' doesn't sound idiomatic. Probably because 'finance' is the wider field, 'what he does' a small part or small overlapping area. But with 'equivalents', like 'locks have something to do with keys', the A and B are reversible.)
..........
It [the fact that it is brittle] might have something to do with the way it's made.
(ie It might be something that results from how it's made.)
In this case, 'The way it's made might have something to do with it being so brittle' (the reverse causative; CED does not give the 'or be caused by something' sense) seems to work.
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
AS CED says, be/have something to do with something is ill-defined:
be/have something to do with something informal
C1 to be related to something or a cause of something but not in a
way that you know about or understand exactly:
I'm not sure what he does exactly - it's something to do with finance.
(ie is related to finance. Here, 'finance has something to do with what he does' doesn't sound idiomatic. Probably because 'finance' is the wider field, 'what he does' a small part or small overlapping area. But with 'equivalents', like 'locks have something to do with keys', the A and B are reversible.)
..........
It [the fact that it is brittle] might have something to do with the way it's made.
(ie It might be something that results from how it's made.)
In this case, 'The way it's made might have something to do with it being so brittle' (the reverse causative; CED does not give the 'or be caused by something' sense) seems to work.
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
answered Feb 27 '18 at 19:43
Edwin Ashworth
48.9k987152
48.9k987152
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
add a comment |
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
So what you're saying is that it does not imply #1 = #2, am I understanding your answer correctly?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:59
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
Leaving aside other more subtle restrictions on usage, CED says that 'A has something to do with B' can mean either 'A and B are related' 'or' the more specific 'A is in a causal relationship with B' (which is obviously a hyponymic sense). I've added that I consider 'B is in a causal relationship with A' to be not an unidiomatic usage, in some contexts. // Although 'is related to' is a commutative relation, idiomaticity arguably doesn't allow 'Finance has something to do with what he does' from 'What he does has something to do with finance'. Which is the bigger field also seems important.
– Edwin Ashworth
Feb 27 '18 at 22:04
add a comment |
1) Implication in logic is one thing; a way two things relate to each other, the relationship they have to each other:
In logic, if A → B, that does not mean B → A.
→= implies.
However, A and B do have something to do with each other. Their relationship is that A implies B and B is implied by A. And, B may even imply A, but, as given here, it does not. They have a logical relationship (in formal logic).
2) A relationship in language between two things is not the same thing. Neither is the relationship between things as referents (real things).
The term houses (A) has something to do with construction (B).
Clearly A has something to do with B, B has something to do with A, and they both have something to do with each other. However, the relationship between them is not logical. It's a number of things that exist in reality (as referents) and some other number of things that can be linguistic. A relationship is not necessarily logical, though "a logic" can arise from a relationship.
I hope I have not got my knickers all twisted up here. :)
In other words, to have to do with something means to have a relationship with or to.
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
add a comment |
1) Implication in logic is one thing; a way two things relate to each other, the relationship they have to each other:
In logic, if A → B, that does not mean B → A.
→= implies.
However, A and B do have something to do with each other. Their relationship is that A implies B and B is implied by A. And, B may even imply A, but, as given here, it does not. They have a logical relationship (in formal logic).
2) A relationship in language between two things is not the same thing. Neither is the relationship between things as referents (real things).
The term houses (A) has something to do with construction (B).
Clearly A has something to do with B, B has something to do with A, and they both have something to do with each other. However, the relationship between them is not logical. It's a number of things that exist in reality (as referents) and some other number of things that can be linguistic. A relationship is not necessarily logical, though "a logic" can arise from a relationship.
I hope I have not got my knickers all twisted up here. :)
In other words, to have to do with something means to have a relationship with or to.
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
add a comment |
1) Implication in logic is one thing; a way two things relate to each other, the relationship they have to each other:
In logic, if A → B, that does not mean B → A.
→= implies.
However, A and B do have something to do with each other. Their relationship is that A implies B and B is implied by A. And, B may even imply A, but, as given here, it does not. They have a logical relationship (in formal logic).
2) A relationship in language between two things is not the same thing. Neither is the relationship between things as referents (real things).
The term houses (A) has something to do with construction (B).
Clearly A has something to do with B, B has something to do with A, and they both have something to do with each other. However, the relationship between them is not logical. It's a number of things that exist in reality (as referents) and some other number of things that can be linguistic. A relationship is not necessarily logical, though "a logic" can arise from a relationship.
I hope I have not got my knickers all twisted up here. :)
In other words, to have to do with something means to have a relationship with or to.
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
1) Implication in logic is one thing; a way two things relate to each other, the relationship they have to each other:
In logic, if A → B, that does not mean B → A.
→= implies.
However, A and B do have something to do with each other. Their relationship is that A implies B and B is implied by A. And, B may even imply A, but, as given here, it does not. They have a logical relationship (in formal logic).
2) A relationship in language between two things is not the same thing. Neither is the relationship between things as referents (real things).
The term houses (A) has something to do with construction (B).
Clearly A has something to do with B, B has something to do with A, and they both have something to do with each other. However, the relationship between them is not logical. It's a number of things that exist in reality (as referents) and some other number of things that can be linguistic. A relationship is not necessarily logical, though "a logic" can arise from a relationship.
I hope I have not got my knickers all twisted up here. :)
In other words, to have to do with something means to have a relationship with or to.
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
edited Aug 1 '18 at 15:37
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
answered Aug 1 '18 at 15:27
Lambie
7,2251931
7,2251931
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f433185%2fto-have-something-to-do-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Have you looked up the phrase "has something to do with"? That might be a good place to start...does it mean they're the same?
– Kristina Lopez
Feb 27 '18 at 19:18
1
@KristinaLopez I looked and it says "used for saying that something is related to something else,". Then #1 = #2. But I'm not sure
– CITBL
Feb 27 '18 at 19:21
Implication and logic are not really the same thing. That said, if A has to do with B, then, B could not not have something to do with A. A implies B, does not mean: B implies A, in logic.
– Lambie
Aug 1 '18 at 15:17