Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Position of "Just"

An excerpt from an exercise:
Rearrange the words to make coherent sentences inside the first and last
words given:
"film to has just be"
that ............................seen
I answered:
"film has just to be"
The correct one was :"that film just has..."
"something get got have done just about this to"
you.....................................office
I answered:
"just have got to get something done about this"
The correct one was "have just got...."
Do I have definitely to*  tick off my answers as wrong ?
Thanks.
*or maybe better: "Have I definitely (got) to...."

 Thanks.
I have to say that I prefer the official answers to yours in both cases.

 "film has just to be"
Maybe
in "That film just has to be seen" 'just' means 'really', while
in "That film has just to be seen" 'just' means 'only' (a rather 
contrived example could be "We've finally finished the montage. Now that 
film has just to be seen.")
Could some native speaker confirm/contradict what I've just said?
Kiuhnm

 Could some native speaker confirm/contradict what I've just said?
Sounds good to me.

 The correct one was "have just got...."
In questo caso "have" è semplicemente l'ausiliare, e per questo l'avverbio
"just" va tra ausiliare e verbo: "he's even been...", "we're only
going...", "you've just got to...".
IMHVO.

 In questo caso "have" è semplicemente l'ausiliare
Sicuro? A me non sembra.
Quel "have got to" non è del tutto simile a quello di sopra?(manca il 
got, che in questa costruzione è facoltativo, ma anche in questo caso è 
usato col significato di "dovere", almeno credo).
Grazie.

 I have to say that I prefer the official answers to yours in both cases.
"You prefer" is not enough for me! :-)
Are my answers wrong without any reasonable doubt?  :-)
Thanks again.

 But in that sentence was no context so I thought both answers would have 
"there was no context"

Max ha scritto:

Ho controllato e credo che abbia ragione tu:
Il significato è sempre quello, ma sembrerebbe che con il got si 
comporta come ausiliare mentre senza come verbo ordinario.

 Are my answers wrong without any reasonable doubt?  :-)
Wrong is too strong a word, in my opinion. In these kinds of exercises 
you're asked to write the more natural and common answer, not just a 
correct answer.
Kiuhnm

 Wrong is too strong a word, in my opinion.
Yes, but when you take an exam and you are tested by the examiner there 
are only correct/incorrect answers.
 > In these kinds of exercises you're asked to write the more natural 
and common answer
But there can be more than one.
However I think I understood, my answers weren't the more natural ones, 
so they were wrong...damn, I failed the test! :-)

Max, would you think "I was saved by a lion" or "I was saved by death"
were acceptable
answers to "fill in the gap" type questions? It's possible to imagine
situations where you'd
say "by" in these cases (though perhaps harder in the "saved by death"
case), but
I think "from" is what they'd be expecting in an exam.

Adam Atkinson ha scritto:

I learned my lesson :-)

 "I was saved by a lion"
An interesting twist of events. :D

 An interesting twist of events. :D
Just so.

 wrote in message 
news:ef27233a-01de-4ce5...@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

It happens , though - thank God!
Androcles 

 Androcles
Mean Teachers' grammar test:
"Androcles was saved ... a lion."
:DDD