No tener para que/no tener por qué/no tener que
The question of the use of "tener por qué" vs. "tener qué" was discussed earlier in Heidita's thread here. In the thread, the difference between the two was described as such:
No tienes que + infinitive =
You don't have to do something/ you mustn't do something
No tienes por qué + infinitive=
There is no need, you have no obligation, you don't need to do something.
This discussion got me wondering about whether their was anything to be said for expressions constructed with the "no tener para que + infinitive" formula (and I would have asked in the original thread, but my question dealt with an additional aspect and also got a bit lengthy). I remember having seen this expression before and a quick check of Google revealed that it is about as common as the "no tener por qué" expression.
From there, I did a bit of research to see if I could find any other discussions on the use of the "tener para que" expression, and unfortunately, even though I found plenty of discussions regarding "tener que/tener por qué," I could find nothing on the use of "tener para que." From here, I looked to the RAE for help and decided to rely on their definitions to try to gain a little clarity on the subject. This is what the RAE says about the following expressions:
Expres[a] obligación o necesidad
Por cuál razón, causa o motivo.
Para el fin u objeto de que
Based on this treatment of these phrases and on what I had read elsewhere, I came up with the following distinctions between these three phrases:
No tienes que + infinitive ? no hay ningún obligación ni necesidad
It's not a necessity for you to do something/You have no obligation to do something
• No tienes que mentir - It's not necessary for you to lie/you are not obligated to lie/you don't have to lie.
• No tienes que venir mañana - It's not necessary for you to come tomorrow/you are not obligated to come tomorrow/you don't have to come tomorrow.
• No tienes que ocuparte de esos documentos - It's not necessary for you to concern yourself with those documents/you are not obligated to concern yourself with those documents/you don't have to concern yourself with those documents
No tienes por qué + infinitive ? no hay motivo/no tienes razón por la que
There is no need/reason/cause for you to do something/you have no cause or reason to do something/you don't need to do something
• No tienes por qué mentir - There is no reason for you to lie/You have no cause or reason to lie/you don't need to lie.
• No tienes por qué venir mañana - There is no reason for you to come tomorrow/You have no cause or reason to come tomorrow/you don't need to come tomorrow.
• No tienes por qué ocuparte de esos documentos - There is no reason for you to concern yourself with these documents/You have no cause or reason to concern yourself with those documents/You don't need to concern yourself with those documents.
No tienes para que + infinitive ? no hay ningún objeto en
It serves you no purpose to do something/You have no objective to gain by doing something
• No tienes para que mentir - It serves no purpose for you to lie/You don't have anything to gain by lying.
• No tienes para que venir mañana - It serves no purpose for you to come tomorrow/You don't gain anything by coming tomorrow.
• No tienes para que ocuparte de esos documentos - It serves no purpose for you to concern yourself with those documents/You don't gain anything by concerning yourself with those documents.
My question is as to whether or not these interpretations seem reasonable and as to whether or not I have correctly dealt with the semantic role of each of these three expressions.
Any help or advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks to everyone in advance.
9 Answers
No tienes para que desnudar el acero para matarme... ?No tienes por qué hablarme de dinero ni de recompensa. ?ya no tienes por la vejez edad en que vivir, ya no tienes para qu´é vivir, por falta de la libertad, ni para quién, por falta de República, ni con quiéen, por la de los buenos ciudadanos ?No tengo por qué examinar el procedimiento del cónsul de SMB desde el momento en que se conviene en la necesidad de rendir nuevamente la prueba que se actuó ante él. ?Sí, señora Lucía. Yo me despido. Pórtate bien Anita, a pesar que no tengo por qué darle ningún consejo. Es tan buena niña y muy obediente
Mira, la mayoría son simples copias, en mi opinión equivocadas, de no tienes por qué....
En el caso de no tengo para qué vivir...
No tengo (motivo) para qué vivir.
This is the only one which I find reasonable, This is seldom used, however, this might be regional, however, if "para qué" is used instead of por qué...this may be regional, but that does not make it more correct.
Izan, I haven't seen or heard (yet, as far as I know) the phrase "no tener para que..."
Neither have I, Izan.
I wonder....I am going to have a look.
Ok, so this seems te be it Izan:
About 838,000 results (0.20 seconds)
This is what I get in a limited search.
However, the expression is
no tengo por qué....
No tengo.... para que is a combination of no tengo+ para que....
not have+ in order to, so that....
for example:
yo daria hasta lo que no tengo (pausa) para que mi mejor amigo/ga sea feliz!
Daria todo lo que tengo y lo que no tengo, para que confiaras
gastar ahora un dinero que no tengo para que a los 2 años me caiga la muela.
That is, the mayority of entries are like this. There are some using instead of por qué, para que...but in my opinion this is a mistake.
Como siempre interesante leer a Lazarus al respecto aquí:
tener por qué (quentin, si lazarus lo escribe así, es que es así
, jeje)
(by the way, Izan, jeje, you are the third entry on google
)
Look at these examples too:
¿cuanto dinero debo tener para que me aprueben una visa mejicana ..
¿que requisitos debo tener para que me contrate disney??
¿que actitud debo tener para que una chica se fije en mi?
¿que estatura se tiene que tener para que una persona sea alta, en
They all sound logical from an English viewpoint. Now we need a native to confirm whether that is how they are actually used.
In English, when we say that "there is no need to" I think that we can be referring to either context of "obligation to" and "motive for". I found it interesting that Spanish has phrases for differentiating between the two contexts.
My question to you is: should it be para que or para qué similar to por qué in the no tener por qué + infinitive periphrasis? (not just musing, when I googled the periphrases, I found both para que and para qué used with the same meaning)
For the no tener por qué + infinitive, I had originally wondered why it was not no tener el porqué + infinitive seeing what the meaning of the phrase is.
Izan, I haven't seen or heard (yet, as far as I know) the phrase "no tener para que..." Are the examples you cited above from a reference work that I could look at to understand it better?
Also it might be good to point out that the phrase "Tener que" is not really related to the expression "Tener por qué" in the sense that 'por' is added to alter the meaning. It is an expression on its own. So in that sense, I don't think that inserting 'para' into 'tener que' automatically then makes a valid expression.
The meaning of 'por qué' as 'reason', etc., is also in the expression: "No hay por qué..."
No tienes por qué tener miedo del mar. - You have no reason to be afraid of the sea.
No hay por qué tener miedo del mar. - There is no reason to be afraid of the sea.
I look forward to the comments that others may have on your post also. 
After delving a bit deeper into some of the instances in which the "tener para que + infinitive" expression has been used in literature, I think that I may have discovered why this expression may not seem reasonable in "el habla corriente."
Of the several documents in which I have observed this type of expression, none was produced more recently than 1909, and most instances of its use were 200 years old or older. Here are some of the examples that I found with the dates listed.
Defensa del gobierno de Guatemala ante la Corte de Justicia Centro-Americana de Cartago. En el Asunto de Honduras (1909):
A ninguna de esas peticiones concurre, ni remotamente, el nombramiento de Consul de Honduras recaído en el Señor Midence, ni la prisión de su hijo Don Luis, por lo cual no tengo para que ocuparme en esos documentos.
Carta de D. Juan de Austria á D. Garcia de Toledo (1574)
Y porque en otra carta que va con esta, doy aviso de mi llegado aquí, y de lo demas que se me ofrece, no tengo para que me alargar en esta, á mas de rogar á nuestor Señor...
Historia de Hiplito y Aminta vol 1. Francisco de Quintana (1729)
No tengo para que encareceros sus prendas, pues con su vista da crédito á su pobreza.
Boletín, Vol. 4. Instituto Geográfico Argentino (1883)
No tengo para que repetir los nombres de los premiados en la Exposicion Geográfica de Venecia
Don Quixote de la Mancha. Cervantes (1605)
ni tengo para que enturbiar el agua claro destos arroyos, los cuales me han de dar de beber cuando tengo gana.
El Compilador Medico. *Real Academia de Medicina y Cirugía de Barcelona (1865)
No tengo para que decir al Sr. Escoribuela que en este esperimento deben emplearse reóforos terminados en placas metálicas de igual forma y...
Clearly, this expression, at least at one time, was accepted in Spain considering there is documented evidence tying the use of this phrase to such notable names as Cervantes, D. Juan de Austria and the Royal Acadamy of Medicine and Surgery of Barcelona. It seems then, based on Heidita's reaction that this phrase is likely very dated and has fallen into disuse, or if it is still in use then it may just boil down to a matter of regional variation in usage patterns. In any case, I think that I will have to go with Heidita's original reaction on this and assume that this phrase has become antiquated/obsolete.
Hi Chaparrito, It's alway a pleasure to see you around the forum, and thanks for weighing in on this:
Also it might be good to point out that the phrase "Tener que" is not really related to the expression "Tener por qué" in the sense that 'por' is added to alter the meaning. It is an expression on its own. So in that sense, I don't think that inserting 'para' into 'tener que' automatically then makes a valid expression.
I hope that my post was not taken to imply that these expressions were meant to be taken as some sort of modification of each other. The original intention of my post was as to the subtle difference in semantic function each performs within a sentence.
As for the following:
I haven't seen or heard (yet, as far as I know) the phrase "no tener para que..." Are the examples you cited above from a reference work that I could look at to understand it better?
Before delving into this discussion, I had a vague memory of perhaps having heard the "tener para que" expression used before. In performing a google search for the related expressions: "no tengo/tienes para que" and "no tengo/tienes por qué," I received the following results:
"No tienes para que" - 3,350,000 results
"No tengo para que" - 923,000 results
"No tienes por qué" - 8,080,000 results
"No tengo por qué" - 13,600,000 results
The result of these searches was significantly large to substantiate the common use of either. In addition, in performing a google book search of "tener para que + infinitive" construct, I was able to find that in at least a few thousand literary sources, this expression had likewise been used.
Here are a couple of examples from literary sources which I considered while investigating this expression that you can have a look at if you like:
?No tienes para que desnudar el acero para matarme... Historia de Hipólito y Aminta Francisco de Quintana (1806)
?No tienes para que hablarme de dinero ni de recompensa. Novelas completas de Sir Walter Scott (1854)
?ya no tienes por la vejez edad en que vivir, ya no tienes para que vivir, por falta de la libertad, ni para quien, por falta de República, ni con quien, por la de los buenos ciudadanos - Obras de Don Francisco de Quevedo Villegas (1726)
?No tengo para que examinar el procedimiento del cónsul de SMB desde el momento en que se conviene en la necesidad de rendir nuevamente la prueba que se actuó ante él. Reclamaciones presentadas al Tribunal anglo-chileno (1894-1896)
?Sí, señora Lucía. Yo me despido. Pórtate bien Anita, a pesar que no tengo para que darle ningún consejo. Es tan buena niña y muy obediente La negra Ester: décimas ; El desquite Roberto Parra (1972)
Edit: I have included the source and date of each cited example to illustrate that many of these works in which this language appeared are more than 100 years old (all, in fact, with the lone exception of the book Décimas de La negra Ester by the the Chilean poet Luis Roberto Parra Sandoval which was published in 1972)
Hola maestra y gracias por su respuesta:
No tengo.... para que is a combination of no tengo+ para que....
not have+ in order to, so that....
for example:
yo daria hasta lo que no tengo (pausa) para que mi mejor amigo/ga sea feliz!
Daria todo lo que tengo y lo que no tengo, para que confiaras
gastar ahora un dinero que no tengo para que a los 2 años me caiga la muela.
Pero en estos ejemplos la expresión «para que» se sigue por un verbo conjugado. Sin embargo, hay muchos ejemplos en Google Books en los que tratan de «no tengo/tienes para que más infinitivo». Aunque entiendo el uso de «no tengo/tienes (pausa) para que más un verbo en el modo subjuntivo», no puedo comprender lo de «no tengo/tienes (pausa) para que más infinitivo».
Por ejemplo, échale un vistazo a estos ejemplos:
?No tienes para que desnudar el acero para matarme...
?No tienes para que hablarme de dinero ni de recompensa.
?ya no tienes por la vejez edad en que vivir, ya no tienes para que vivir, por falta de la libertad, ni para quien, por falta de República, ni con quien, por la de los buenos ciudadanos
?No tengo para que examinar el procedimiento del cónsul de SMB desde el momento en que se conviene en la necesidad de rendir nuevamente la prueba que se actuó ante él.
?Sí, señora Lucía. Yo me despido. Pórtate bien Anita, a pesar que no tengo para que darle ningún consejo. Es tan buena niña y muy obediente
Podrías decirme ¿cómo debo tratar estos para traducirlos de manera más correcta?
Hi Q, and thanks for responding to my question. I agree that this discussion is definitely lacking the viewpoint of an hispanohablante.
As to the following:
My question to you is: should it be para que or para qué similar to por qué in the no tener por qué + infinitive periphrasis?
I originally had the same idea; however, researching examples (somewhere between 50 and 100) of the uses of the "para que" expression, I did not find any examples of the "que" carrying a diacritic. In addition, I also scanned many more of these examples just to see if I could find any evidence of any usage of this latter variant but could find no instances of its (qué) use. However, this was not in accordance with your own research, so I can only say that in my own research, I found no evidence of this. When referring to research, I am referencing specific examples coming from literary sources as I did in fact find some evidence of its (para qué) use within the results of the general google search.
Edit: After reading your suggestion, I went back and found enough examples of the use of both the "para que" and "para qué" expressions that I am really unsure what to think at this point. Hopefully, somebody will throw me a rope soon because as it stands now, I get the distinct impression that I am probably slipping into quicksand.
Regarding the "por qué" expression, I did find these helpful discussions: Tener que y Tener porque
and these two discussing the use of porqué, No hay un porqué para el temor
