Who has said anything about the 'emphasis argument'?I've also heard the emphasis argument.It's rather that we don't consider them to be errors.It seems like people grasp at reasons to make errors "OK."As it happens, I say "I have a headache" myself, but I don't believe in teaching people that the acceptable "I have got/I've got" is wrong.Fine. You can say, and teach, "I've got a headache." My kids will learn "I have a headache."I don't think anyone has said that it's a redundancy. In some contexts the present perfect of GET has come to have the same meaning as the present simple of HAVE.The “have” contracted in phrases like this is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not a redundancy.
That's all I have time for at present.
Last edited by 5jj; 27-Jul-2012 at 20:02.
There is also the informal HAVE got construction in BrE, which, although perfective in form is nonperfective in meaning, and is frequently preferred (esp in BrE) as an alternative to stative HAVE."Presented"? Is that presented as grammatically correct, or presented (and noted) as usage, but not proper grammar? I would love to know the source and a quote.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985.131) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman
The idiom have got historically derives from a perfect construction. This is transparent in BeE, where got is the past participle of get. [...] Have gotis restricted to informal style, but is otherwise very common, especially in BrE.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K (2002.112) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: CUP
That's fine. I understand that we can't converse purely technically. My reason fro bringing up the point was that it sounded like, "That's the way people throw language around. It's just kind of--that sense, ya know?"...and to this I would say, "Yes, I do know. That is usage." I think we don't argue about the usage aspect of language.
Nobody said anything about it here. I said that because the usage argument seems so frivolous, I thought I'd throw out another frivolous argument while we were at it. I feel as though people throw mud at a wall and see what sticks.Tuco: I've also heard the emphasis argument. 5jj: Who has said anything about the 'emphasis argument'?
So often I hear arguments pointing to usage that I get frustrated. Below...or above--somewhere you do point to British grammars, so we've moved on to that at least. Let's see where that goes.Tuco: It seems like people grasp at reasons to make errors "OK." 5jj: It's rather that we don't consider them to be errors.
Acceptable. This moves us away from the term standard, which is confusing enough.As it happens, I say "I have a headache" myself, but I don't believe in teaching people that the acceptable "I have got/I've got" is wrong.
USAGE NOTE People who invoke the term Standard English rarely make clear what they have in mind by it, and tend to slur over the inconvenient ambiguities that are inherent in the term. Sometimes it is used to denote the variety of English prescribed by traditional prescriptive norms, and in this sense it includes rules and usages that many educated speakers don't systematically conform to in their speech or writing, such as the rules for use of who and whom. In recent years, however, the term has more often been used to distinguish the speech and writing of middle-class educated speakers from the speech of other groups and classes, which are termed nonstandard. This is the sense in which the word is used in the usage labels in this dictionary.
Standard English. Answers.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Standard English: Definition from Answers.com, accessed February 05, 2006.
I don't want to open myself up on the matter of terminology. I know that I don't have the words to identify much in the realm of grammar, but when it comes to grammar, even Standard English is not necessarily used the same way by everyone. The differences are not the same as, say, red vs. pink, but rather black vs. white--that is, sometimes it means prescription, sometimes formal...or informal...usage. That's just not right.
My point is, "acceptable is extremely vague, and when people ask specific questions about correctness, it is helpful to be specific and state whether something is acceptable in usage, or according to rules. I see the problem though, as you don't seem to think that grammar consists of rules...excepting perhaps that there are no rules?
Paul Brians says it like this:I don't think anyone has said that it's a redundancy. In some contexts the present perfect of GET has come to have the same meaning as the present simple of HAVE.
"(People often say) 'You’ve got mail' should be 'you have mail.'
The “have” contracted in phrases like this is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not a redundancy. Compare: “You’ve sent the mail. ”
To have current possession of. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: We've got plenty of cash.In some contexts the present perfect of GET has come to have the same meaning as the present simple of HAVE.
Those last two were found in an earlier post as well. This sounds like incest, not productivity. It's like the entry word infer. Definition four in one dictionary is imply. That isn't productive. Let's just say that yin can mean yang, and vice versa, thereby adding flexibility and functionality. If you want to use a given tense, use it. If you want to create a new tense, create one. Add functionality...but don't use the wrong tense and confuse it with the right one. That doesn't add anything, and it is an error in usage.
I address this in my manuscript in the context of coining a phrase. When you coin a phrase, go ahead and dumb it down or others will do it for you. Go ahead. Don't make the distinction between productive changes and bastardizations. Help dumb down the language. We have plenty of people doing it here already. I just hope people are really good at limbo.
Hopefully we have cut down on some of the points requiring attention here.That's all I have time for at present.
Last edited by Tuco; 28-Jul-2012 at 18:27.
It confuses the rules. Rules are entirely different from adding words or changing words as in functional shift.This does not apparently apply to have got.
We can say, "I have" and "I got." We can say "I have gotten." I believe that when you use the present perfect to mean the present, an error has been made according to prescription. As for description, well, just go outside and there you have it. Not much point in talking about that.
Now, if someone asks as a learner of English, I think it is important for the teacher to make the distinction between prescription and usage, but I know you don't want to do that.
Thanks for the quote. Why do you feel Have got is restricted to informal style? If it is grammatically correct, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable at all levels of style?Have gotis restricted to informal style
Not a teacher!
I have tried to read all the posts in this thread. Now I've got a headache and I haven't got any aspirin. Thanks a lot.
tuco: You said in another thread, "If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there" The thread referred to being, I assume, this one, I will attempt to address the apparently unanswered question if you will re-pose it.
I looked in post 6 and 8 and did a CTRL + F for the text couple (and couple of). I couldn't find an instance of "couple of" except by another poster. Could you point out where I was inconsistent? Could you tell me why it would matter if I
I believe you have addressed all concerns and we are moving on.tuco: You said in another thread, "If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there" The thread referred to being, I assume, this one, I will attempt to address the apparently unanswered question if you will re-pose it.
In post #8 you wrote, “It's like saying, "There's a couple people I want you to meet." If teachers want to teach that as acceptable, I'm just glad I'm out of school”.
That’s fine by me, though it strikes me as a little strange that you should feel uncomfortable about a usage that appears in your own writing.Great. Well, you said in the other thread that if I answered your questions you would address this:I believe you have addressed all concerns and we are moving on.
"Tuco, you have still presented no hard evidence that have got is 'incorrect grammar'".