<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results for 'tag:Constructions tag:Semantic meanings' matching tags 'Constructions' and 'Semantic meanings'</title><link>http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aConstructions+tag%3aSemantic+meanings&amp;tag=Constructions,Semantic+meanings&amp;orTags=0</link><description>Search results for 'tag:Constructions tag:Semantic meanings' matching tags 'Constructions' and 'Semantic meanings'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CSMOD (Build: 3191.21962)</generator><item><title>having something uncountable</title><link>http://www.englishforums.com/English/HavingUncountable/zvwlg/post.htm</link><pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:43:25 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:439762</guid><dc:creator>Believer</dc:creator><description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have difficulty clearly seeing the correctness of sentential constructions that have an uncountable noun with&amp;nbsp;the&amp;nbsp;verb 'have' before it.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have happiness. -- This doesn't seem to be correctly written.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But, if we apply the same uncountable noun but with a different semantic meaning, it seems to be correctly&amp;nbsp;written. I arrived at that conclusion since I have seen and often used this sentence.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have heartburn/indigestion.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Should&amp;nbsp;I just accept the fact some uncountable nouns, especially those that have abstract meanings, do not go well&amp;nbsp; or don't not fit with a verb showing possession such as 'have'? Sorry if my question doesn't sound like it is&amp;nbsp;clearly formed. &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>