MSGID:  b0117be9
REPLY: 1:153/716.0 42640ae2
CHRS: CP866 2
RFC: 1 0
RFC-Message-ID: 
RFC-References:  
TZUTC: 0300
PID: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/31.7.0
TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 30.03.2023 21:52

  ak>>  Why do those Infinitives are without "to"?
  AH>           In formal English, the preposition is generally
  AH> included where it may not always be in colloquial speech.  What
  AH> I see here is a private conversation (i.e. you may notice turns of
  AH> phrase Miss Stickler didn't accept).  That's the easy explanation for
  AH> the last sentence... the other is more complex.  Although it struck me
  AH> as "not English" with the added preposition, I wasn't really sure why
  AH> until after wading through multiple definitions of the verb "to 
have".
  AH> It seems that if "have" means a third party will be asked &/or
  AH> required to do the job the preposition is omitted, as in the first
  AH> sentence you asked about.  :-)

Ok.
BTW, you called those "to"s as "propositions". But prepositions are put 
before nouns? For instance, in English textbook in Russia we call those 
"to"s as particles.

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor 2023
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 
hunderbird/31.7.0
 * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)
SEEN-BY: 1/19 123 15/0 16/0 19/10 37 50/109 90/1 105/81 106/201 123/130
SEEN-BY: 123/131 129/305 142/104 153/7715 203/0 218/700 221/1 6 360
SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 111 112 113 206 307 317 424 426 428
SEEN-BY: 229/470 664 700 240/1120 5832 250/25 266/512 280/5003 282/1038
SEEN-BY: 301/1 113 317/3 320/119 219 319 2119 322/0 757 342/200 396/45
SEEN-BY: 423/81 450/1024 460/58 463/68 467/888 712/848 5000/111 5001/100
SEEN-BY: 5005/49 5015/42 46 5019/40 5020/715 830 846 1042 4441 5030/49
SEEN-BY: 5053/51 5054/8 5058/104 5064/56 5075/35 128 5080/102 5083/1
SEEN-BY: 5083/444 5090/958
PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 301/1 221/1 320/219 229/426