You don't know what you got/have got until it's gone.

[jutfrank]

I simply don't understand that.

Got it.
I got it.
I've got it.
I have got it.

I mean that all three of these utterance are grammatically equivalent. The difference is in the phonology (what is actually articulated).

 

[jutfrank]

If you consult any one of the many lyrics sites available online, you'll find that they list the official lyrics as "you got" in every line.

Look here, on Joni's own official website: https://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=13

 

[Holmes]

I really think that Joni is physically saying you've every time. Listen to the video Rover posted. I think I can hear the have every time. Same with the album version.

I hear the /v/ in the Joni Mitchell recording Rover posted, too, every time Mitchell sings the line "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."

However, I definitely do not hear it in the Bob Dylan version of the same song, nor in the Counting Crows version, etc.

Given that it was Bob Dylan who wrote the song, it seems as though Joni Mitchell edited the line for grammatical correctness, whether consciously or not.

 

[jutfrank]

Given that it was Bob Dylan who wrote the song, it seems as though Joni Mitchell edited the line for grammatical correctness, whether consciously or not.

It's Joni's song. Bob Dylan covered it. It appeared on his 1973 Dylan album.

 

[Holmes]

It's Joni's song. Bob Dylan covered it. It appeared on his 1973 Dylan album.

Ah, yes, I see that I was looking at the Bob Dylan version when I saw that it was his. Had I checked Wikipedia, I would have seen what you mentioned.

So, I suppose it was the other way around. Joni Mitchell sang the line in a grammatically correct way, and then Bob Dylan dropped the auxiliary verb.

While we're on the subject of "got," I'd like to cite one of my pet peeves: "You got this!" I hear it all the time. When I see it in my editing work, I add 've.

 

[5jj]

Got it.
I got it.
I've got it.
I have got it.

I mean that all three of these utterance are grammatically equivalent. The difference is in the phonology (what is actually articulated).

I have as much faith in your claim as I have in your ability to count.

 

[Holmes]

The difference is in the phonology (what is actually articulated).

Jutfrank, would you say that someone thinks the auxiliary verb without uttering it even if he or she never knew it should be there in the first place?

If the makers of the old "Got milk?" commercials knew that they were eliding "have you," what about the children who responded "I do(n't)" rather than "I have(n't)"?

 

[Skrej]

Debates over Mitchel's song aside, the Cinderella power ballad very clearly stated that "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".
Video here.

I honestly thought this thread was going to be about this song. It closed out many a junior senior prom in the late 80's & early 90's, and at least one funeral I attended.

 

[jutfrank]

I have as much faith in your claim as I have in your ability to count.

Consider the fourth a bonus one, free of charge.

Jutfrank, would you say that someone thinks the auxiliary verb without uttering it even if he or she never knew it should be there in the first place?

Yes. I'd say the structure is fully 'there' in the mind, whether it's uttered or not. The structural forms of grammar are essentially mental structures, not phonological ones. The language system grows in the mind and is merely articulated by the speech organs. To be quite honest, I can't really see how any other view is coherent.

If the makers of the old "Got milk?" commercials knew that they were eliding "have you," what about the children who responded "I do(n't)" rather than "I have(n't)"?

Good question, and one that raises a point I was considering mentioning. I'm not familiar with this particular commercial so it's hard to comment, but I suppose I'd say that the children are in error, and that they've misunderstood the elision as (Do you) got milk?, where got alone is interpreted as stative.

 

[probus]

Having put on my high quality headphones I can hear the v sounds in the live performance @Rover_KE linked to, although some of them are barely audible. I wouldn't set any store at all by online lyrics. Many of them are computer-generated and full of errors.

 

[probus]

What about these two sentences? Do they make sense?

1. You don't know what you had until it’s gone.
2. You only know what you had after it’s gone.

Both of them are correct and reasonably natural.

 

[diamondcutter]

I’d like to make sure whether all of these sentences make sense and have the same meaning.
1. You don't know what you have got until it’s gone. (BrE)
2. You don't know what you have until it’s gone. (AmE)
3. You don't know what you had until it’s gone.
4. You only know what you had after it’s gone.

 

[Holmes]

Yes. I'd say the structure is fully 'there' in the mind, whether it's uttered or not. The structural forms of grammar are essentially mental structures, not phonological ones. The language system grows in the mind and is merely articulated by the speech organs. To be quite honest, I can't really see how any other view is coherent.

I'm on board with the idea that "[t]he structural forms of grammar are essentially mental structures, not phonological ones." It seems that we could postulate at least two alternative mental structures here, though. One is that the speakers of "You don't know what you got till it's gone" and related sentences take the auxiliary verb "have" for granted or elide it in some sense. Note that, normally, perfective "have" cannot be elided: "I taken a nap"; "I written two letters"; "I swum three laps."

The other is that, for these speakers of nonstandard locutions ("I got milk in the refrigerator right now"), "got" doesn't have to be the past tense of "get" when it appears with no auxiliaries. For them, whether they realize it or not, "got" is a present-tense form meaning "have" in such locutions. But it is an impoverished form. Even these speakers won't say things like "I gotted milk in the refrigerator yesterday" or "Gotting milk in the refrigerator is good."

 

[Holmes]

I’d like to make sure whether all of these sentences make sense and have the same meaning.
1. You don't know what you have got until it’s gone. (BrE)
2. You don't know what you have until it’s gone. (AmE)
3. You don't know what you had until it’s gone.
4. You only know what you had after it’s gone.

The last two sentences don't work for me. The tenses are off. I'd change them as follows. These sentences are about what was true in the past.

3a. You never knew what you had until it was gone.
4a. You only knew what you had after it was gone.

Sentences (3a) and (4a) mean basically the same thing as each other, but they do not mean the same thing as (1) and (2), which are about what is true in the ongoing present.

 

[diamondcutter]

When something is gone, you don’t have it anymore. It’s something you had. That’s why I think “You only know what you had after it’s gone” works. What do you say?

 

[Holmes]

When something is gone, you don’t have it anymore. It’s something you had. That’s why I think “You only know what you had after it’s gone” works. What do you say?

Do you intend "it's" to be interpreted as a contraction of "it has"? If so, I find your sentence OK. I do not find it OK with "it's" interpreted as a contraction of "it is."

 

[5jj]

Jutfrank, would you say that someone thinks the auxiliary verb without uttering it even if he or she never knew it should be there in the first place?

Yes. I'd say the structure is fully 'there' in the mind, whether it's uttered or not. The structural forms of grammar are essentially mental structures, not phonological ones. The language system grows in the mind and is merely articulated by the speech organs.

How can we possibly know that it's 'there' in the mind? It seems to be that it's fairly clear that it's not 'there' on the Got milk? example something you seem to think of as a misunderstood elision, jutfrank.

A perhaps not dissimilar situation is noted by Palmer (1970.40) when he says:

In children's speech I have attested [betnt hi]. Such a form is based on the assumption that BETTER is not only an auxiliary verb. but also one which has a negative as well al a positive forn (which is, of course, not true of adult speech).

The structure 'd better is not fully there in the mind for such young people.

 

[diamondcutter]

In #36, for my sentence “You only know what you had after it’s gone”, Holmes said this:
Do you intend "it's" to be interpreted as a contraction of "it has"? If so, I find your sentence OK. I do not find it OK with "it's" interpreted as a contraction of "it is."

I think "it's gone" in that sentence could be be interpreted as a contraction of "it has gone" or "it is gone" and they don't make much difference. What do you say?

 

[Tarheel]

@diamondcutter It makes as much sense to me either way. Why would you miss something you didn't know you had?

 

[Holmes]

In #36, for my sentence “You only know what you had after it’s gone”, Holmes said this:
Do you intend "it's" to be interpreted as a contraction of "it has"? If so, I find your sentence OK. I do not find it OK with "it's" interpreted as a contraction of "it is."

I think "it's gone" in that sentence could be be interpreted as a contraction of "it has gone" or "it is gone" and they don't make much difference. What do you say?

Is this what you are trying to say?

It is only when you no longer have something that you know what it is you had.