The US usage of 'got'

Blue_UK said:
'gotten' is an alternative form

No, it is. It's normally spoken as 'I've got a car'. You add 'have' before a past tense verb to imply it occurred before something. Obviously both are in the past tense, but one is more past than the other. This matters if you're talking about something that happened in the past relative to something that is already being discussed in the past. For example, "I was working on a design when my pencil broke. Luckily, I had bought a spare one earlier that day."

Version 3 above is legitimate English.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: The word "had" is not really necessary. It borders on being grammatically incorrect.
 
Blue_UK said:
It is when you render 'have' to 'had'. However, you are right.

"We have got him in custody now" is more correct than "We got him in custody now", this was my *intended* focus of this thread!
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: In this case, "got" is not necessary. It should read, "We have him in custody now."
 
I was trying to give an example of what not to do! Adding 'now' disambiguates the meaning of 'got' implying it should been 'have'.

We can let this thread sink to the depths now.
 
D H said:
Have I got news for you. "Have got" is perfectly valid English.
Definition number 10 of "get" from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
10 a : HAVE -- used in the present perfect tense form with present meaning <I've got no money> b : to have as an obligation or necessity -- used in the present perfect tense form with present meaning <you have got to come>​

My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary has a very detailed note. Some excerpts:
HAVE or HAS GOT in the sense of "must" has been in use since the early 19th century. ... The use of HAVE (or HAS) GOT in the sense of "to possess" goes back to the 15th century. ... These uses are occasionally criticized as redundant, ... but they are well established in all varieties of speech and writing. ...​
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: While it may be "perfectly valid," I think it sounds more appropriate to say, "I have some news for you!"

If one insists on starting the sentence with "Have I got...," "got" might be colloquially correct, but it probably is more correct to say, "Have I some news for you!" I don't like it that way, because using "Have" at the beginning of a sentence makes puts the sentence on shaky ground. I'd rather hear, "I've got some news for you!"
 
G. F. Schleebenhorst said:
They've just forgotten "I've" is what they're really saying, so instead of "I've got" they say "I got". Just many years of ill-education I suppose. They do the same with "seen", although so do ignorant people all over the world.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Another pet peeve I have is when I hear, "I done...".
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
This is not grammatically incorrect. Please review my previous post. It is simply incorrect usage. There is a difference. Your own statement is downright false, but that doesn't entitle us to accuse you of using English grammar incorrectly.And you're still wrong. It is not grammatically incorrect. Once again, your statement is incorrect but not grammatically so. "Got" is a legitimate past participle of "to get."Good grief! We all talk that way to our dogs and our babies! The language we hear in our childhood remains a powerful, if unconscious, memory, which is why the most tight-assed spoilsport "authorities" insist on never speaking "baby talk." My dogs pick it up and use it when they talk back to me; "I just gots to have another boney. Please Poppa please?" So I'm not surprised if children pick it up too. Perhaps these homies are simply channeling a fond memory of their childhood. Who is curmudgeonly enough to suppress that?Breakdown of grammatical paradigms is a hallmark of English. Otherwise we'd be saying things like, "Thou shalt not..."

Do you always say, "If I were interested...", or do you lapse into "If I was interested..."? Do you always say, "You had better spend more time on your homework," or do you omit the "had"?

It's not as though (notice that "as if" would be incorrect grammar so I hope you never say that) this is a new development. A famous song from the 1930s is titled, "I Got Rhythm."

Hopefully, in a couple of centuries (never "a couple centuries," that would be grammatically incorrect) English will become as streamlined as Chinese, with no inflections for tense, case, person or number. In that ideal world, we'll speak more precisely and say, "I have car in garage," "I buy car last year," or "I bring car to office." (Yes, please please please dump those stupid, useless articles!)

Until then, we should all lighten up and let our language evolve.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: If we lighten up too much, we'll all be speaking Spanish or maybe in your country Arabic. I understand that language evolves, and I accept that as a positive fact. It depends on who you're talking to, I suppose. When I'm teaching medical students, I use the Queen's English. When I'm talking to my grandkids who are teenagers, I use colloquialisms or current slang like "hood," "crib," "homie," "peace out," "baby daddy," and so on. However, they do know the correct way to speak and write their 'cave' mother tongue--English. I firmly believe in addressing your audience, but that didn't work too well for the Hillster in 'Bama. Politics aside, I would have shot her big white ass on the spot... or maybe I should say, "I's be packin' a piece and be takin' her honky White ass out...". But, then, I'm just me.
 
Blue_UK said:
Why don't we just learn mandarin and be done with it?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: I think that computerese will be the language of the future. We may eliminate all punctuation and superfluous wording. I'm okay with that. It would be universal. Queen's English could only last for so long.
 
Blue_UK said:
I was trying to give an example of what not to do! Adding 'now' disambiguates the meaning of 'got' implying it should been 'have'.

We can let this thread sink to the depths now.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: True. "We have him in custody..." should suffice. (Unless the timing of his detention is in question.).
 
Blue_UK said:
That's in the present. Perhaps you were trying to agree?!

This thread should sink now. Play the music from Titanic...
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Loved the Irish music! Especially when Rose was dancing in steerage! Absolutely loved that scene!
 
Medicine*Woman said:
Gung hee faht choy!
Click to expand...
I address you in Mandarin and you reply in Cantonese? Please, it's "gong xi fa cai." :)

"Ding hao" is Mandarin for Cantonese "ding ho," "indeed good," an old colloquialism similar to "cool" or "awesome," often seen in the names of dishes in Cantonese restaurants. People from Si Chuan say "yao dei," literally "worthy of desire."
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I address you in Mandarin and you reply in Cantonese? Please, it's "gong xi fa cai." :)

"Ding hao" is Mandarin for Cantonese "ding ho," "indeed good," an old colloquialism similar to "cool" or "awesome," often seen in the names of dishes in Cantonese restaurants. People from Si Chuan say "yao dei," literally "worthy of desire."
Click to expand...

You didn't understand my comment? It was in bastardised Cantonese.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I address you in Mandarin and you reply in Cantonese? Please, it's "gong xi fa cai." :)

"Ding hao" is Mandarin for Cantonese "ding ho," "indeed good," an old colloquialism similar to "cool" or "awesome," often seen in the names of dishes in Cantonese restaurants. People from Si Chuan say "yao dei," literally "worthy of desire."
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: This is WAY outta my league. I give...
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
"Ding hao" is Mandarin for Cantonese "ding ho," "indeed good," an old colloquialism similar to "cool" or "awesome," often seen in the names of dishes in Cantonese restaurants.
Click to expand...

Ding ho chow mein! Totally awesome stir-fried noodles! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top