Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 January 5
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 4 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 5
[edit]"Got" and "Have got". Not "Have"
[edit]Like those in British films and TV shows, why do most British/English people say got or have got more than have (even in emotional or serious situations)? Examples...
Have got (Have). What have you got (What do you have). Have you got (Do you have). Haven't got (Don't have). Got it (Have it). I've got to (I have to). 31.48.251.169 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I used to wonder why most Americans miss out the "got". It's just the common idiom. To my ear, there is a subtle difference in meaning, but I'll leave it to the linguists to explain. Dbfirs 21:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Rather "have got" than anything with "gotten". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- In American English, there's a clear distinction between I've got and I've gotten, the latter meaning "I have obtained" and the former meaning "I have". I think I've got and I have are more or less in free variation, though I have might be just epsilon more formal. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- To my North American ears,
using I have rather than I've got is either British or an old-fashioned usage that ended around 1960. But I don't have an informed source to cite on the question. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)- Really? I don't think that's a common attitude at all in the States. I have a pen; I've got a pen; same difference. You geolocate to Toronto, where I spent a year, and I don't recall noticing this difference in usage, but then one might not, given that there isn't any usage I'd find unusual, just the absence of one I might use. --Trovatore (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- On second thought, I was thinking of bare I've rather than I have. Or else I was thinking about some specific context that I can't bring to mind. Never mind. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- 76 must be thinking of that old British TV show, I've Got a Secret. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Really? I don't think that's a common attitude at all in the States. I have a pen; I've got a pen; same difference. You geolocate to Toronto, where I spent a year, and I don't recall noticing this difference in usage, but then one might not, given that there isn't any usage I'd find unusual, just the absence of one I might use. --Trovatore (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- To my North American ears,
- In American English, there's a clear distinction between I've got and I've gotten, the latter meaning "I have obtained" and the former meaning "I have". I think I've got and I have are more or less in free variation, though I have might be just epsilon more formal. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- According to The Oxford Guide to English Usage (2nd Edition). London: BCA. 1993. p. 190., the use of 'have got' is informal. If what you say is true, although I can see no evidence that it is, the answer to your question is, because most British people speak informally.--Ykraps (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. In informal speech there is a tendency to contract the inflexions of the verb "have" ("I have" > "I've", and so on). A phrase such as "I've a pen" sounds unnatural, so people say "I've got a pen" instead. 2A00:23C0:7983:8301:BDB9:F4F:4AE5:3707 (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't say "I've a pen"; that sounds super-something, not sure if super-British or super-old-fashioned. I'd just say "I have a pen", which sounds perfectly natural to me, and not especially marked for either formality or informality. Or "I've got a pen", in free variation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Both of my Scottish friends (one now dead) habitually said "I've not [past participle]" rather than "I haven't ...". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly wouldn't say "I've a pen"; that sounds super-something, not sure if super-British or super-old-fashioned. I'd just say "I have a pen", which sounds perfectly natural to me, and not especially marked for either formality or informality. Or "I've got a pen", in free variation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. In informal speech there is a tendency to contract the inflexions of the verb "have" ("I have" > "I've", and so on). A phrase such as "I've a pen" sounds unnatural, so people say "I've got a pen" instead. 2A00:23C0:7983:8301:BDB9:F4F:4AE5:3707 (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- An English teacher at school (London, 1970s) told us that we should never use "got" in our written work, but he got ignored. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- We'd be spanked or at the very least humiliated in front of the class, by one teacher for using it, at much the same time. But then, he just enjoyed spanking kids. The local paper reported his funeral and how much he must have been liked, by how many old pupils turned out. That's not why I was there. And I'd never seen anyone literally piss on a grave before. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of them might have turned out just to be sure he was dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- We'd be spanked or at the very least humiliated in front of the class, by one teacher for using it, at much the same time. But then, he just enjoyed spanking kids. The local paper reported his funeral and how much he must have been liked, by how many old pupils turned out. That's not why I was there. And I'd never seen anyone literally piss on a grave before. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- An English teacher at school (London, 1970s) told us that we should never use "got" in our written work, but he got ignored. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- As to why it may be done, it seems to me to be a form of syntactic redundancy or reduplication, as a means of emphasis., similar to syntactically redundant phrases like "very much" or "an added bonus" or similar. These phrases are a sort of linguistic intensification, the redundant phrase implies a more intense version of the one without the unnecessary verbiage. --Jayron32 12:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)