Have got to VS Have to

[man of manners]

Hi!

Why can't we use "have got to" in past or future forms? Why can we not say "He hates to have got to work for him" for example?
Can "have got to" be used in negative forms?

Thanks in advance!

 

[man of manners]

As 'have got' is technically a present perfect form of the verb GET, it cannot have an infinitive form.

But as far as I know, there is a perfect infinitive [have + P.P] which can replace the past and present perfect.
So why can it not have an infinitive form?

 

[man of manners]

Possibly because our automatic though when we see or hear 'to have got' is that it is the perfect infinitive of GET rather than the infinitive of HAVE GOT (= HAVE).

I see no difference between the perfect infinitive of GET and the infinitive of HAVE GOT , indeed. Is there a good grammatical reason? "If you cannot think of any, I think I have some."

 

[man of manners]

"I think that "have got (to) cannot be used as an infinitive because it is not the present perfect of "get" except in form but it is present simple in the meaning so if we feel obliged to/we want to use an infinitive, we ,this time, use it according to the meaning not the form because we use the form to give a meaning which will utterly change if we use "to have got (to)". Since "have + P.P" is not present simple so we use "have (to)" instead to give the meaning intended"
What do you think of it?

 

[man of manners]

Isn't that more or less what I said in my earlier posts, rather more simply?

You did not mention the point of "meaning". Also, I knew this before I asked but I intended to ask then give my opinion.
Now ,let's proceed to discuss the other part of the question:
Can "have got (to)" be used in the past tense as "had got (to)" or in the negative forms?

 

[GoesStation]

Can "have got (to)" be used in the past tense as "had got (to)" or in the negative forms?

American English differs from the British version here. We don't use to have got to in past or negative forms. Instead, we replace it with ​to have to.

 

[Roman55]

Instead, we replace it with ​to have to.

So do I. I don't think we can generalise.

 

[man of manners]

Yes.

I think "have got to" can be negated in Br.E but it cannot be used in the past so we use "had to". Is this not right?

American English differs from the British version here. We don't use to have got to in past or negative forms. Instead, we replace it with ​to have to.

I completely agree with you. You can see this from the likes and thanks buttons.

 

[man of manners]

I have already answered this.

You have not clearly.
You only said "Yes" and "Yes" covers the two parts of my question "Can "have got (to)" be used in the past tense as "had got (to)" or in the negative forms?"
But I suspected the use of "have got to" in the past because as far as I know, the past form of "have got" is "had" not "had got"

I think that from this moment I am going to increase my life expectancy by simply not opening any more of your threads. May the force be with you; I won't.

You could have answered clearly from the beginning so that all of this wouldn't have happened. One's life expectancy cannot be increased only if one feels relaxed and comfortable with others, no matter who they are.