But, Julia! To have the organist drink and drunk year after year.

[shootingstar]

. . .
Mrs. Soames: Naturally I didn't want to say a word about it in front of those others, but now we're alone - really, it's the worst scandal that ever was in this town!
Mrs. Gibbs: What?
Mrs. Soames: Simon Stimson!
Mrs. Gibbs: Now, Louella!
Mrs. Soames: But, Julia! To have the organist of a church drink and drunk year after year. You know he was drunk tonight.
Mrs. Gibbs: Now, Louella! We all know about Mr. Stimson, and we all know about the troubles he's been through . . .
. . .
(Thornton Wilder, Our Town, Act I )

I know what have someone do means - example: I'll have Harry book you a taxi. However, what to does to have the organist drunk mean? Does it mean to have a drunk organist? Or does it just mean that they "own" a drunk or boozed organist? It defies me.

 

[SoothingDave]

The church "has" him in the sense that they keep him on staff, they continue to allow him to play in the church.

 

[Barque]

I'd say "To have" means something like "To experience" here.

To have the organist of a church drink and drunk year after year.

To go through the experience of our organist getting drunk all the time!

I know what have someone do means - example: I'll have Harry book you a taxi.

This is different. This means "I'll get Harry to book you a taxi". Here, "have" means "arrange for".

 

[5jj]

The church "has" him in the sense that they keep him on staff, they continue to allow him to play in the church.

I don't agree. I think it's more like 'to experience', as Barque suggested. The experience may be:
positive: 'To have the King visit our village!',
or negative: 'To have my son arrested for being drunk and disorderly!'

 

[SoothingDave]

I can see that view. If this was a one-off, that would be the only interpretation.

Since this is repeated behavior and "the worst scandal" I would think the criticism is of the church for having him.

 

[5jj]

Having thought again, I agree that's possible.

 

[Barque]

I would think the criticism is of the church for having him.

I'd agree with that interpretation if she'd said "To have an organist who drinks and get drunk year after year".

 

[SoothingDave]

She did. There's no semantic difference.

 

[Barque]

There's no semantic difference.

My point is that there is. Not arguing. Just disagreeing.

 

[shootingstar]

I would still like to know whether drunk is the adjective or the past participle of drink in the quoted sentence To have the organist . . . drunk year after year.

 

[Barque]

I'd say it's the adjective.

 

[shootingstar]

I must come back to this thread, I'm afraid. I don't really understand it. If drunk is the adjective I'm missing the verb be or get. In my opinion, if drunk is an adjective it has to be But, Julia! To have the organist of a church drink and be/get drunk year after year, right?

 

[Barque]

In my opinion, if drunk is an adjective it has to be But, Julia! To have the organist of a church drink and be/get drunk year after year, right?

No, not necessarily.

"To have him drunk" works. I can't explain the grammar behind it unfortunately. But I assure you it's fine.

Maybe someone else will explain it.

The "be" or "get" is implied.

 

[5jj]

But, Julia! To have the organist of a church drink and be/get drunk year after year,

That's possible, but so is the original. 'Drunk' - But, Julia! To have the organist of a church drink and drunk (in a state of drunkenness) year after year.

 

[Barque]

Also, this play was written a long time ago. It uses language that's old-fashioned now.

 

[shootingstar]

The "be" or "get" is implied.

Indeed that's what I was thinking of.

 

[Skrej]

There are two separate problems with the organist - first that he drinks, and second that he drinks to excess.

The characters are Protestants, a denomination of which many are (even more so at the time the play was written) fervent teetotalers - they believe it a sin to drink any alcohol at all. While someone having the occasional discreet nip might be overlooked, it certainly wouldn't do have someone as prominent as the church organist not only be a known drinker, but to be publicly intoxicated - in church to boot.

That's why she phrases it as 'drink and drunk' - if it's a sin to drink, then how much more a sin must it be get drunk? The final straw is that it's not just some random community member, but someone in position of prestige withing the church itself.

My childhood church was Baptist (a branch of Protestantism) which firmly frowned against any form of drink. Ergo our communion "wine" was just grape juice, although sometimes I think it was some kind of faux wine made from grape juice and sparking water.

Then I went to college and slid into all kinds of sinful vices.

 

[tedmc]

I think "to have" means "to be associated with", even though the drinking and getting drunk is the organist's personal life outside the church which, by right, has nothing to do with his church duties. The church is worried that the organist's ungodly habits would bring disrepute to them.

 

[Barque]

even though the drinking and getting drunk is the organist's personal life outside the church

They're concerned that he shows up drunk at church.

Mrs. Soames: But, Julia! To have the organist of a church drink and drunk year after year. You know he was drunk tonight.

They noticed when they went to church that he was drunk.