Be used to
Few and Little
Get Used To
Have and Have Got
Lend and Borrow
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Perfect Simple
Present Perfect Cont
Present Perfect Simple
Say and Tell
Small and Little
So and Such
Too and Enough
Will and Going to
(See the phonemic chart for IPA symbols used below)
"have" is passive, "get" is active. I don't believe the two words are compatible. You either have it or you get it. I got it yesterday. I have it today. 'Have got' is a sloppy, incorrect use of a combination of the two words.
Thanks Kathy. So the fact that "have got" is used naturally by nearly all native speakers (I wonder if you yourself have NEVER uttered the words, "I've got to pick up the kids from school") has no effect on your belief that it is "sloppy" and "incorrect"?
I've got to do something is different from the 'have got' possession
form, because the former goes with a verb and the latter goes with a noun.
I've got a headache. (a headache is a noun)
I've got to pick up the kids from school. (pick up is a verb) (verb phrase)
I've got a car or I have a car is just a difference between BE and AE. The Americans tend to use I have and the Brits I have got. In the British sense, the got part could be seen as the past of get, and means that you already have got something so you already own it, it is there with you now. It suggests that at sometime or other you actually went out and bought a car for example, or that you have lived with 'a brother' (I've got a brother) for sometime.
We use both forms all the time yet we just don't think about it... in fact, if you start thinking about it, you start to wonder whether it is correct, but it is! You can say I've got a new house or I have a new house, it's the same thing.
Finally, gotten is an American thing... although there are similarities in the idea with the British have got it is used in the present perfect in American English... he has gotten himself into trouble.
It's not really so much a case of BrE and AmE, I think. It's more to do with spoken and written language. We tend to write I have..., but say I've got... However, it is true that Americans say I have..., while British people say I've got... more often. You can still often hear Americans saying I've got... and Brits saying I have... though!
I think Americans would say I have a car, I've got a car or even I got a car, but less likely to say I have got a car. They will use I have got to talk to you. Also, I don't think I've ever heard Americans say I've a car, but I've seen it in writing. It sounds like a UK usage to me.
Paul, regardless if every American (myself included) is saying something incorrectly, it's still incorrect... and sloppy. Anyone who actually paid attention in grammar class, knows that we Americans continually bastardize the English language. Why is this a bad thing? Take a trip to the US Virgin Islands and see what happens when a language is left to evolve on it's own for a couple centuries. You can hardly understand what the native people are saying.
Hi, I'm slightly worried about all the posts bashing the use of "have got"
I've got black hair, or
She's got a big nose.
These are both natural and perfectly correct, NOT sloppy and incorrect!
By the way - I've a car is definitely a big no-no and something we would want our students to avoid... I challenge the anonymous poster to find a credible example! Seems like some people need to re-consult their grammar reference books...
Just my two cents ;-)
I always focus on the fact that the use of have and have got differs more in the form rather than in the function - it's a grammar issue. I point out for instance that have, like most other verbs needs an aux verb for the negative and interrogative forms and that have got doesn't. I also like to highlight the fact that have got whenever possible should use short forms (I've got / he's got) and have should always use the full forms (I have, he has, etc).
Hello to everyone. We, English teachers in Spain, are suposed to teach HAVE GOT rather than HAVE and it is shown in all grammar books we use in our schools. I agree with Jon (two posts above) and with the fact that we use full forms of HAVE and short forms of HAVE GOT.
"No way Jon, John and Lucia!" Right on Tai! We should feel remorse for the ESL students in Spain and in many
other places. English grammar strictly states that "have got" is incorrect and
rightly so: have (pres) and got (past tense) should never be used together or
taught as a correct usage in English, regardless of its idiomatic usage.
The formula for constructing this type of sentence is present auxiliary plus past participle, not present aux. plus past tense. Jon and Lucia, do you teach your students to say "Today, I have saw a car or I have ate a pizza, today?" Well, if not, then please don't teach them to use have-present aux. with got-past tense verb. Even though I, myself, often use it for comic, emphatic or obvious, grammar-abandoning reasons, or, even, simple laziness, I would never use it in the classroom or use it when teaching, unless as an example.
We Americans once learned this throughout elementary, middle and junior high school. The declining of grammar usage is despicable and even pervades most of today's authors. Grammar is the verbal (linguistic) mechanism which helps to preserve the habit of forethought. Lucia, to respond to your quandary, "I've a car" is a possible, grammatically correct usage; however, it's pragmatically hard to imagine. It's foreseeable to be practical when many people need to sequentially state or affirm that they have something; however, communicating via writing, in itself, may preclude the above scenario and repeated use of I've an object.
Aaron--I submit that there is a difference in meaning between "I have got something" and "I have gotten
something". The first is a matter of present possession. The second is present
perfect, indicating that something has been received in the past. (as with your
examples of "I have seen a car" etc.) Hence the question of what exactly "have
got" is, and how to teach it... You may simply be correct that this mysterious
phrase is simply bad English, but I have my doubts. There are situations where
it really does seem to be the more natural utterance. (Q: "Hey! Where's my
stapler?" A: "Oh sorry. I've got it. Here."---"I have it" sure seems odd
sounding in this case.)
And to Tai's point regarding the Virgin Islands and a 'language evolving on its own', that's a living language for you. Unless you're dealing with a dead language like Latin, it will continue to change, evolve, or devolve. Sorry. Language can't be permanently fixed in a grammar book.
Well, the British form is get-got-got and the American form is get-got-gotten. In my point of view, there's a great difference between them. Itīs clear that weīre talking about Present Perfect, which means that there's a connection with past and present. "I've got a car" (means that you got it at a certain time in the past and you still have it) But, if I didnīt have a car and I decided to buy one, for example, the right form at that time is: "I have a car" and not, "Iīve got a car" because thereīs no connection with the past, just with the present.
Aaron - Please "give me a break"...and how can I teach my students: "I feel good"... or "she got a ticket to ride but she donīt care?"
Glen - I totally agree.
One of my friends told me that to say, "I've soup," leaving out the word got, is correct grammar. I decided to look that up. So far, from everything I have read, the phrase "I've got" is proper grammar. I haven't been able to find information thus far, giving a proper grammar example with the contraction I've, followed by a noun, excluding the word got before the noun. If anyone here that says the phrase "I've [insert noun], is correct grammar, please post a link. Thanks!
We can use 'have got' to speak about something very personal, something we "owe" and 'have' for something that can't last, that is not 'ours'.
I have got blond hair (I was born with it, it's mine)
I have blond hair on my jacket (where does it come from?)
I've got a car. (it's a statement about the object: a car belongs to me)
I have a car. (it's a statement about an opportunity: I can go there, or I can drive you there.)
Still a lot of snobbery in the English speaking world I see. Have got is a perfectly valid form of speaking seeing how so many people use it. It is not sloppy as it takes longer to say than just 'have' and it is not incorrect as so many people use it. It is not present perfect either it is just a special unique verb that has evolved. If you think it is incorrect you are obviously a snob, a moron or just not a native speaker. Language changes all the time. Think about it.
I don't understand why people bother saying 'I've got'. It's grammatically incorrect and longer and more complicated than merely saying 'I've' or 'I have'. I think that Aaron explained it well enough; there is no logical reason to say 'I've got' in any context, whether talking about the past or the present.
"I've got" as in "I've got a car" is perfectly correct. You may consult any grammar book if you don't believe this. It is very basic grammar and is rather shocking that some people on here are not aware of that. It isn't a good idea to post something on here if you don't understand English grammar. Some people may be refering to this for reference so please don't state something as fact unless you are sure.
Of course "have got" is a correct form... there's no argument about it. It's neither sloppy nor incorrect. It's rather worrying though that so many people don't seem to realise this. Let's leave giving advice on the English language to the professionals!
Aaron is right. Deal with it. "Have" is the verb, not "have got". I do not have got time for the rest of your idiot opinions!!
I am new to teaching english, so this is fascinating for me! The one idea that immediately springs to mind
(which i think is a new one and not yet mentioned) is that using 'have got'
instead of simply 'have' is illustrating a grammatical tautology.
I have a car (grammatically correct) I got a car (grammatically incorrect but still conveys the information) I have got a car ??!!
I don't know whether usage of 'have got' is correct or not. But i do know I simply don't like the sound of the word 'got'!
If the english language is going to evolve in this way, so be it - but it won't be anything to do with me!!
I like the explanation of the different implications suggested by cdelphine64...
I remember being taught at school (in England) that to say 'I've got' (I doubt any native speaker would say 'I have got'?) is unecessary, like saying 'I have have'. If I'm attempting to be 'correct' I'll say, for example, 'I have a car' but generally every day I say 'I've got a car' along with the majority. I like to think about these things though, and I'd like to see what others think... If I take the meaning of 'got' to be 'acquire', then I would use 'I've got' to mean 'I've acquired'. Then it sounds correct to me. 'I've got a new car', I like that! Plain 'I've got a car' meaning 'I own/have in my possession a car', I'd rather say 'I have a car'. Personally, I believe both should be taught, as it is so common and people just can't agree on which is correct. ;)
So to come back to the subject 'How do you teach "have got"?', I make sure whenever pertinent, to mention differences between British English and American English. Adult students nowadays require more and more of that kind of knowledge in order to not get too lost in semantics. Let's face it, we are all exposed to both English. And a language, whichever it is, always evolves, be that progression or regression, it just evolves with slight changes and adaptations here and there. Agree, too much snobbery here. "I've got, I have got, I have gotten" and "I have" are perfectly correct. The use of "got" is just one of those exceptions that became part of the language. That one form that's reminiscent to a present perfect because of obvious reasons but that's actually more of a present. "I've a car", though grammatically correct can easily be avoided since hardly ever used. At the end of the day, you want to teach them practical English, and not by the book English. Unless you are teaching a linguist, to whom the intrinsic nature of these language details might be important for whatever research reasons. But then again, he or she would not necessarily enrol in an ESL course but maybe something more challenging. My 2 cents is, we are here to help non native speakers acquire the level of fluency needed in today's demanding world, not to over complicate things and confuse them. Trust me: in business English, the simpler the better, in any way imaginable, grammar, vocab, expressions, etc. Any non native who wishes to acquire a higher level of English, will never go for an ESL lesson with a TEFL teacher... trust me. :) I'm an absolute non native language trainer, so... really, my 2 cents only.
Americans, there are soooo many things British think are wrong about American English (try traveling vs
travelling for example) but we (at least some of us) have to concede that it is
just English which has evolved in a different way and English is full of exceptions anyway!
In the UK it's natural English to say "I've got a car" for something you possess (no matter when you acquired it) or to express that you acquired something recently.
"I got a car" is natural for something you acquired any time in the past. We don't use it as much as Americans seem to in the slang-type sense of "I have a car" but, thinking about it, maybe I might to do without thinking about it. I'm pretty sure some Londoners with thick accents would do. But it'd sound like bad English.
"I have a car" is much more polite or well spoken and you won't hear it too much in the UK, except in those circumstances.
"I've gotten a car", is something you won't hear too often. I know you'd say "I've gotten a car" (right?) but would you say "He's gotten sick"? We would not usually say that, but I'm sure there's a few who might.
With regards to "I've a car" It's another way of saying "I have", which you say, so it's certainly not wrong, but it is used sometimes in what we call 'posh' English and is sometimes used by us plebs if we're trying to make something sound more important (maybe, more often, jokingly) "Don't tell me you've got a ticket for Bob Dylan?" "No - I've TWO tickets for Bob Dylan.". No-one would say "I've soup" as a stand alone statement, but I'm sure some well spoken chap or chapess might say "I've soup on my tuxedo/ballgown". Those people are human too and so it is correct, whether you like it or not.
Aaron, "I've a car" may be 'pragmatically hard to imagine' for you, but then again so is the 24 hour clock! (Sorry other-Americans, that was a sly dig, but only joking!)
Not trying to start a war, but just a personal niggle here, aimed at Jeremy's "I don't understand why people bother saying 'I've got'. It's grammatically incorrect and longer and more complicated than merely saying 'I've' or 'I have'." statement. It's what we call 'making the language more interesting'. Making something more complicated, or just having more available options at your disposal, can give language what is called... 'depth'. The sound of American English is really friendly and it's far from being a stupid form of the language, so don't reduce things to the level of "Let's use the simple-most form of everything and stick RIGIDLY to the rule book" or we might as well just call it a day and do "one grunt for yes, two grunts for no" and then just point at things we want.
About "get" and "got", I agree with Aaron and Tai. "Get" is the verb in the present tense, "got" is the same
verb in the past tense. To convey our message we either indicate if we are in
the present or in the past. Either one, but not both together. "I have a cold"
is simple enough. In answer to Claudia that is a good example of complicating
matters, the Spanish language has that rule of if it's yesterday, it is said in
one way, but if it's longer it's another word, and if it's very long, it's
another word. Now Claudia wants us to add not only the past, but if you still
have it, or not, on top of all the rest. In my view "got" sure is in the past
whether immediate or late past, or active or passive. IT IS IN THE PAST. I think
the rule should apply to all verbs equally. Just like give, gave, given, is get,
got and gotten. If we make exception for "got", then given will be if you gave
me a present at a certain time and I still have it, it's in the present, so it
should be "give", and if I don't still have it, it should be "gave". What kind
of rule is this? This certainly has nothing to do with being a snob, I am in
total agreement that language changes to accommodate people, new words are
constantly added and needed. Furthermore, I personally think that "got" sounds
too much like the word "gut". Personally I will still continue to use the word
have, had and had, it sounds so much simpler and so much nicer.
P.S. Referring to Jon who is worried about the bashing of the word "have got" with his choice of words: "she is got a big nose". I do not think Jon should be worried anymore since he has just made Aaron's point of view very clearly, that when we mix a verb in the present and a verb in the past, no matter what the verb is, it will always come out like: "I have ate a pizza" and "I have saw a car", and "She is got a big nose".
My dear fellows what a wonderfully orchestrated discussion you have just had. Indeed a performance of
much intrigue. Now Aaron is 'no back of a clock' so to speak and was it Martin
who stamped his authority upon the strange notion of the grammar verse in
question taking on a verb as well. Oh my god. The horror. What a crime. Actually
i was expecting someone to provide some teaching ideas for 'have/have got' but
what i got was fantastic. I will not explain 'have/have got' as is too
cumbersome and futile to go over again and again. The only thing that fascinates
me is that possibly all of you are making a living out of teaching the English
language but most of you fail to realise that some grammar points do not obey
the rules. I nearly laughed when someone tried to painstakingly deduce that 'the
present' is not allowed to go with 'the past' ecetera ecetera and what about the
inclination of the 'present perfect' being the function of this grammer point
all along like from the very beginning. I nearly wet myself. It was comedy gold.
Thank you so much.
Post scriptum: Why is English mispronouced in America. Again the phonetics are not derived from the look of the words. The language must be heard to be spoken. Is this a deliberate act of independence?
Have none of you (with the exception of Dr Moran, of course) ever heard of Swan's Practical English Usage? If you had
you would see that grammar is not a matter of right and wrong, but of what people actually do with language.
There are so many completely incorrect posts that it would be hard to know where to start if it weren't for AARON's blaze of ignorance lighting the way. I love his formula:
"The formula for constructing this type of sentence is present auxiliary + past participle, not present aux. + past tense."
Problem is, Aaron my dear, that the simple past tense and the past participle ARE THE SAME THING FOR A REGULAR VERB - eg. work, worked, worked and in Brit English the past participle of 'get' is 'got', just as the simple past is also 'got'. That's just simple ignorance of another form of the language, But when he says:
"English grammar strictly states that 'have got' is incorrect and rightly so: 'have'(pres) and 'got'(past) should never be used together or taught as a correct usage in English, regardless of its idiomatic usage."
He is truly out on a limb since IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE!
I've got a dozen or so teaching methods that introduce 'I have got' within the first few units and 'got'(past), it just shows he has no idea what a British irregular verb table looks like, (rather than for the US) 'got' is both past tense and past participle. On this particular point, the difference between Am and Br is simply that (British) IRREGULAR verb 'to get' has a different past participle to the one he has learnt. For us 'got' is both the past tense and the past participle. Has he ever heard a British person use the past perfect expression 'I had gotten'? Of course not = we had got, just like we still have got, a different way of doing it.
If you don't want to teach that the present perfect is also used to describe possession in this case because it confuses you or because you don't think your students need to know that's fine. Please don't, however, say that English grammar strictly states that 'have got' is incorrect and rightly so when that is simply not the case.
Language can be used to describe reality from any number of different perspectives and the difference between 'I have' and 'I have got' is no more than a change of perspective on the same aspect of reality. When it comes to how to teach it, however, that's an entirely different matter and I never did work out a satisfactory method. Some students just 'get it' and others, who possibly share some of Aaron's less agile cognitive processes, just don't get it and never will.
The English verb structure is based on the following binary elements:
By switching on and off each element you can create all possible verb forms: I work = present - so there is no past, no negative, no modal, no perfect, no progressive and no passive, all that remains is subject and verb in the present tense (although the full form still has an auxiliary which we will need to use for past and negative forms - I do work).
By switching these elements on one-by-one we can make the following constructions, not all of which describe actual possible situations for any given verb, depending on the meaning of the verb:
I work nothing = I work (which is the same as 'I do work')
I work negative = I don't work
I work past = I did work
I work past negative = I didn't work
I work modal = I would work
I work past negative modal = I wouldn't work
I work perfect = I have worked
I work perfect past negative modal = I wouldn't have worked
I work progressive = I am working
I work progressive perfect past negative modal = I wouldn't have been working
I work passive = I am worked
I work passive progressive perfect past negative modal = I wouldn't have been being worked (yes, honestly, you really can do that and it's still only one verb).
Obviously, all the intervening combinations are also possible (e.g present perfect progressive 'I have been watching' etc.). The hard part is conceptualizing the logical situations in which such constructions are necessary.
In the case of the present perfect used as a possessive - this is to KATHY in particular - 'have' is not inherently passive. A passive construction is one in which the auxiliary 'to be' directly precedes a past participle (e.g. 'the book WAS WRITTEN' or 'you ARE BEATEN') 'have' is neither a part of the verb 'to be' nor a past participle, ergo the only passive construction 'have' can be part of must be a PERFECT PASSIVE construction (with or without modals, negatives, past tenses etc.) since you can use the 'have' to change 'be' into 'been' and then follow that with a past participle, e.g. 'I have been beaten' - a present perfect passive construction, however 'I have beaten' is only ever going to be active because there's no part of the verb 'to be' in the construction. Indeed Kathy, do you actually know what passive means in this context? It means that the role of subject and object are reversed. That means that the person or object that performs the verb comes after it not before (if it comes at all) and that the person or object that comes before the verb has that verb done to it. Very different from concept behind present perfect which controls the relationship between subject and verb over time, rather than the controlling whether the subject 'does' the verb or has the verb done to it.
You say 'You either have it or you get it'. 'I got it yesterday'. 'I have it today'. - Do you seriously mean I can't get it today and I couldn't have had it yesterday? That really is bizarre. You're confusing the verbs' semantic content (what they mean) with their usage in compound verb forms as or with auxiliaries 'have' can be used as both auxiliary and root verb, whereas 'get' cannot be used as an auxiliary. That's why you can say 'I had had' without Microsoft Word underlining it in red to suggest that you delete the repeated word.
Are you guys really teaching English?
The difference between Am and Br is simply that our IRREGULAR verb 'to get' has a different past participle to the one he has learnt (that's different too - he probably thinks he's learned it).
Robert, Congraduations! You've thoroughly asserted your intelligence. Aaron is surely crying. Now, which is better? "I have a stupid cat." or "I have got a stupid cat." Nobody said that "I shouldn't have gotten that cat." is wrong. I'm not a teacher, not a student of English, and I often say "have got", so I pulled out a couple grammar books. The Bedford Handbook says: "has got, have got" is unnecessary and awkward in such constructions. It should be dropped. We have (not have got) three days to prepare for the opening." NOTICE it doesn't say that it's wrong, just that it shouldn't be used.
You kids are funny. Why teach this as a separate subject, when it's clearly about simple present tense and present perfect tense? The "have in "have got" is not a common verb, as suggested by the first comment. It's an auxiliary verb, and the very ordinary auxiliary verb for perfect tenses. It doesn't have a meaning of its own. I can't understand why you go through all the trouble of teaching negative and flexion in tenses and everything... when it's just about following the usual, simple rules of verbal tenses, with maybe one or two exceptions.
Divide the class into two groups, half the students being the coppers, the other half the witnesses. The police officers are given a few minutes to think of questions to ask the witnesses about several notorious suspects. Each witness is given a colour photo of a different suspect (male or female, with beard, moustache, short or long hair...). The witnesses must memorise the photo (younger or lower level students may take notes) and after a few minutes give them back to the teacher. The teacher sticks the pictures (preferably with other similar ones) on the board (with bluetack) at the "police station board". Then each "copper" must find a "witness" and question them about their "suspect". With the notes taken (about eye and hair colour, physical traits, etc) each "police officer" must then go back to the board and try to find the picture fitting the description they got. The winner is the first copper to identify the "suspect" and report to the "chief" (the teacher). The "witness" must confirm identification. Activity takes about 25 minutes (depending on group) My students loved it! As a follow-up, students may invent details / a story about the crime committed by each "suspect", act out the arrest, etc. You sure can come uo with lots of ideas!
In Canada, we use both "I have" and "I have got". The difference between the two is usually referring to a temporary situation or a permanent one. For example, "I've got some time" or "I've got 20 dollars" but "I have two brother" or "I have long hair".
I've always thought of this as a Brit/US thing, and it's strange that people aren't aware of this. Listen to
any Brit speak, and s/he will say "have got" much more than "have."
Likewise, an American will say both, but will tend to say "have" more than "have got." Certain dialects of AmE will also use the nonstandard "I got" for "I have," but whether this is an abomination or simply a facet of a non-prestige language is another debate.
It's also worth noting that Americans very rarely use "have got" in negative or question forms. "I've got a car" is commonly heard here in the US, but "have you got a car?" and "I haven't got a car," while easily understood, sound a bit forced and pretentious to American ears.
Of course, both "have" and "have got" are used in the imperative sense, equivalent to "must." Interestingly, in AmE (not sure about BrE), we seem to use "have got" in this context when we want to add emphasis, for example: "you have GOT to see this movie." "You HAVE to see this movie" works too, but it just doesn't sound as forceful. Likewise, you'd almost never hear the negative or question forms of "have got" used in this context ("I don't have to go to work today" is common, whereas "I haven't got to go to work today" doesn't sound quite right to me.
At the end of the day, both "have" and "have got" are acceptable, prescriptivist snobbery notwithstanding. In my experience English learners aren't really interested in these sorts of BrE/AmE differences (at least at the lower levels), and the exact subtleties of usage can get pretty convoluted. I would just teach them both as equally correct ways of saying the same thing, but make sure to be clear that "have got" can only be used in the present simple.
It seems that some of you are of the opinion that "have got" (to mean "have") is just "lazy" and/or "wrong".
Furthermore, it seems that no amount of evidence to the contrary would convince
you otherwise. Seriously, please stop spreading misinformation. It's your
goddamn job to teach English as it IS spoken, not as you would have it spoken.
English grammar did not come down on freaking stone tablets from heaven. It's
what's embodied in the actual speech patterns of the people who use English,
nothing more. (Side note: Different speech or writing communities have different
practices, and there are practical social consequences to following different standards.)
My personal approach to teaching "have got" (since that was what the OP was originally requesting) would be to say that it's just a synonym for the present tense of "have". Furthermore, it's usually realized in the contracted form, as in "I've got way too much time on my hands". In even more informal contexts, it the "ve" can be elided and you get the (cringeworthy, to my ear) "I got way too much time on my hands." I would then point out that the usage is primary oral rather than written, and that in essays or other formal writing, it would be better to use "have" (lest your essay be drenched in red ink).
P.S. In my (great-lakes US) dialect, at least, for "I've got" to be the present perfect of "get", it would need to be "I've gotten". Just my 2 cents.
Using "have got" when it means simple ownership is plain lazy. I'VE GOT A CAR vs. I HAVE A CAR....I HAVE A CAR is correct. We have gotten lazy and laziness becomes the norm. 'I've got a car' is easier to say than 'I have a car'. Try it; it is true. The incorrect version has been used so often that even grammarians don't know what the correct usage is any longer. Language evolves, and it often evolves out of constantly repeating an error. "Got milk?" This question is grammatically incorrect. The question actually is "Do you have milk?" "Have you got cheating on your mind?" Wrong. "Do you have cheating on your mind?" Correct. This error has become so commonplace that it has become acceptable. This is sad, really. This goes to show you that anyone can change language by just repeating errors. What happened to rules? Someone has to know how to use grammar correctly, and correct grammar should be used, especially in formal communication between companies and nations. Incorrect usage makes one look really, really silly.
It is simple as I see it.
Have is used as a main verb for possession. It is also used as an auxiliary verb in the present perfect.
Have got is present perfect, because got is (sorry Americans), the commonly used past participle of get in English English. However, sorry to disagree with everyone here, we English also sometimes use gotten as well, and the meaning is slightly divergent...
Have got is used for acquisition. We can use it to say 'I've got blue eyes', because the idea that we acquired the colour, and the eyes, is charming, and kind of true, we have inherited them from our parents. The same is true for all kinds of instances where possession might seem, at first glance, to better suit the situation, and it may well be that Brits much overuse have got, and that have might often be more elegant.
Have gotten is used for the lengthy or troublesome acquisition of something.
I've gotten my knickers in a twist.
He's gone and gotten himself arrested.
I've never really gotten to the end of Ulysses.
It's rare but we use it this way, and have been doing so for quite some time. Search Shakespeare (those of you who say have got is simply wrong and for 'idiots', bear in mind you're calling Shakespeare an idiot), and you will find examples of have, have got, and have gotten, conforming with the usage I have described.
Jane --- "What happened to
Rules DID NOT COME FIRST! Spoken language did not, nor does not, come from or originate from rules. Rules are an afterthought......simply an attempt to codify a given language after it has taken form. The only time the Rule Book can be closed and set in stone is with a dead language (or at least until we find new manuscripts and new usages of dead languages.) As languages evolve, so do rules. Imagine an English Grammar book in 500 years. I personally believe American English will evolve into some form of Spanglish that will dominate the landscape.
I teach ESL to level 1 adult students attempting to learn to speak and understand English. It is not a linguistic setting or grammar class. It is a class on conversational English. Therefore, I never,never introduce grammar into the equation when teaching have got. Why not? just read this thread!........In addition, it is irrelevant to understanding what your boss is asking you. "You gotta work Visa?"
I have 2 post graduate degrees with heavy linguistic emphasis. I teach, study and live an academic life. I am anything but lazy........It is NOT Laziness to speak with shortened, grammically incorrect words and sentences. The point is to convey understanding through oral expression.....if someone asks me if I have a car, I typically say, "Yea, i gotta car." My SOLE objective being to convey the idea of my personal car ownership. Shortening a thought in verbal communication is not lazy. It is efficient, effective and time-saving. It allows for more time to advance the conversation to new topics. It allows one to sound like a "normal" human being in informal social settings rather than a high-browed, elitist, academic stiff. Or perhaps to demonstrate non-lazy, verbal communication, we should respond, "Yes, I am the owner of an automobile" Problem of "have, have got" solved!
'Have got' is incorrect prescriptively speaking.
When someone says, "I've got blue eyes," the intended meaning is "I have blue eyes." It isn't charming to think of it in terms of receiving them through heredity. People don't generally think that way.
Someone said, "In writing we say 'I have' while in writing we say, 'I've got." Why would you choose to write it a different way?
Why do you hear "I have" in more formal speech? It is because "I've got" offends the educated ear. That is not to say that most people with a 4 year degree aren't educated, but frankly, most people don't care.
Got can mean received, so those who defend the "I've got blue eyes" line can lie to themselves that they wanted to make a point of their heredity and claim that their grammar is correct; but those who can admit that they need to work on one point of grammar will see that "got" means "have and decide to work on this as a worthy pursuit.
I find it difficult to believe that there is an argument over whether "have got" or "have" is correct. Both
forms are perfectly acceptable! If you've never gone outside the US, logically
you won't be as accustomed to hearing or seeing it. I am American teaching
English abroad. As a teacher, you should not only recognize that dialects vary
around the world (in more than just English), but you should most certainly teach this fact!
"Have got" is not a "sloppy" mash-up of two words. It has the same meaning as our "have," but it is treated as an irregular verb. Americans tend to use it less and simply do not teach as the correct form in OUR dialect. Saying that it's wrong is like telling a Brit that saying "at weekends" is incorrect (other countries do not say "on" weekends... or pronounce the letter "Z" as Americans do, for that matter). The fact is that it is not wrong -- it is just not what we are used to in this hemisphere.
Please, to those of you who are calling "have got" sloppy or incorrect, before you make up your mind on the subject, please do a bit of traveling (or travelling, in British English).
"I've got a degree" I have it, I earned it, I achieved it.
"I have long legs" I did nothing to get them, they are an innate part of my physiognomy.
"He's got lots of money" he either earned it or inherited it, nobody has a fat wallet on their person as they are expelled from the womb.
"He has a nice personality" which would appear to be an intrinsic characteristic.
To get - to obtain, to achieve
To have - a verb of general possession
Interesting thread - I vaguely remember my old English teacher years ago wrinkling her nose disapprovingly at the use of "have got" in writing, but these days just about everybody I know uses this form - and it is formally taught in all French schools to indicate possession "I've got blue eyes, a brother, a big house" etc. The older English form of the past participle, gotten, once used in 'English' English, now appears to be almost exclusively used by speakers of American English, but I stand to be corrected! In my opinion, if enough people consistently use a certain way of speaking, this eventually validates it - even if causes the purists amongst us to shudder. Witness the more colourful additions to the dictionary every year.
I have always used get, have, and got in terms of time. "Get" represents the future... "I'm going to get an
ice cream cone tomorrow". Present tense: "I have some ice cream". Past tense: "I got some ice cream last night with my children".
As a side bar, I cringe when I watch detective or police shows on television, and one of the cops always asks "What do ya got?" or "Wha da ya got?". I dream of watching ONE of these shows where the questioning person asks "What do you have?" ...... proper PRESENT tense, as in the person has a file in their hand at that moment, or fresh information they curently have knowlege of and are bringing it forth.
My Dutch first years (12yrs) have to learn this and I think it's just ridiculous. It just doesn't make any sense.
According to my book, you'd rather use "have got" in spoken language, but even so, they'll have this on their written exam. I just don't see the point.
I think I'm just going to point out that they can use both and emphasise the form. They tend to make mistakes when they have to form questions (Do they got? Do have they got? etc.)
If you have a good way of introducing or practising this grammar point, tell us about it here...
Try our grammar discussion forum for further help.
© 2014 Eslbase. All rights reserved