1 2  4 5 6 7 » 26
As far as I know, you usually can't leave out "got" after "have" in negative and interrogative sentences. Grammars say ... as "Have you a car?", or "I haven't a job", or "I haven't it" don't sound very natural to me?

What you are experiencing is language change in action. The forms without "got" would have been considered normal speech until very recently. In fact one can still hear them used by elderly people for whom they were the norm when they were young. It would be hard to imagine a young person using them, however. The fact that the introduction of "got" is recent (someone will probably now quote examples from Shakespeare etc to show it's not, but it's common usgae I'd say is very recent) is why it is seen as colloquial - it's the usual case of language sticklers trying to resist natural changes to the language.
You have missed the fact that there are actually three ways of using the verb "to have". In questions:
"Have you an appointment?"
"Have you got an appointment?"
"Do you have an appointment?"
In negated sentences:
"Birmingham has not the charm of York or Edinburgh" "Birmingham has not got the charm of York or Edinburgh" "Birmingham does not have the charm of York or Edinburgh".

Of course, the last of these can also be:
"Birmingham doesn't have the charm of York or Edinburgh".

The form with "do" is the one to use if you wish to sound neither over formal nor colloquial, although in casual conversation even this sounds a little formal in some circumstances - in the above sentences I find the use of the "do" form a little formal in the question sentence, but fine in the statement sentence.
In the sentences you give, I find 2) sounds archaic, while 1) and 3) are formal but acceptable.
What is happening here is that the verb "to have" may be used as a normal verb to mean "possess", but is more commonly used as an auxiliary verb. English speakers (it seems particularly in British English) seem to be getting uncomfortable with the non-auxiliary use of "to have" and have ended up converting sentences which use it in a non-auxiliary way to sentences that use it as an auxiliary with the verb "to get". So

"I have two sisters and a brother"
becomes
"I have got two sisters and a brother"
or
"I've got two sisters and a brother".
As an auxiliary verb, "have" can have "not" appended to it to negate sentences, and have its subject places after it to form questions:

"I have seen his house"
"I have not seen his house"
"Have you seen his house?"
In the past (several centuries ago), this could be done with any verb:

"I love his daughter"
"I love not his daughter" (archaic)
"Love you his daughter?" (archaic)
Modern usage insists that with non-auxiliary verbs, the auxiliary "to do" is added to form negations and questions:
"I do not love his daughter"
"Do you love his daughter?"
However, because "to have" has both an auxiliary and a non-auxliary usage, the negation and question forming forms without using "to do" remained acceptable when it was used in a non-auxiliary way even when they had become archaic for other non-auxiliary verbs:
"I have an appointment"
"I have not an appointment"
"Have you an appointment?"
I would say that now the simple question forming usage is acceptable but formal, while the simple negation forming use has become archaic. That is why of the three examples you quote from Swan, 1) and 3) are still fine, but
2) sounds as if someone is trying to be poetical, and I don't think youwould come across it at all in a non-selfconscious usage today.

Matthew Huntbach
In negated sentences: "Birmingham has not the charm of York or Edinburgh" "Birmingham has not got the charm of York ... or Edinburgh". Of course, the last of these can also be: "Birmingham doesn't have the charm of York or Edinburgh".

I forgot to point out that in the first two "has not" can be "hasn't". When you do that, the first sentence becomes less archaic, in fact I think it's reasonably acceptable that way.
Matthew Huntbach
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
You have missed the fact that there are actually three ways of using the verb "to have". In questions: "Have you an appointment?" "Have you got an appointment?" "Do you have an appointment?"

Is the third way common in Briteng as well?
The form with "do" is the one to use if you wish to sound neither over formal nor colloquial, although ... find the use of the "do" form a little formal in the question sentence, but fine in the statement sentence.

I see. Then it sounds normal in AmEng (I understand it's the usual way to conjugate "to have"), and ordinary or slightly formal in BritEng. I would have thought it sounded colloquial in BritEng, a sort of Americanism.
converting sentences which use it in a non-auxiliary way to sentences that use it as an auxiliary with the verb "to get". So "I have two sisters and a brother" becomes "I have got two sisters and a brother"

As far as I know "I have got" is still regarded as a present perfect with a simple present meaning, isn't it?
I would say that now the simple question forming usage is acceptable but formal, while the simple negation forming use has become archaic.

One more thing:
1) I haven't a car
2) I haven't it

For some reason the second sentence sounds more unlikely to my non-native Eng speaker's ear. What about you?
Bye, FB

"Gli americani sono ignoranti per loro stessa natura" that is "The Americans are naturally ignorant"
(Paolo Bonardi on it.cultura.linguistica - http://snipurl.com/7ryg)
One more thing: 1) I haven't a car 2) I haven't it For some reason the second sentence sounds more unlikely to my non-native Eng speaker's ear. What about you?

The first sounds wrong, but the second sounds even more wrong. We would probably say either "I don't have a car " or "I don't have one".
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?" "Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?" Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
Well, she meant what she said, I'm sure. It's quite possible though that you could persuade her that the sentence ... "I'm sorry I haven't a clue," which is cheating a bit since it's the name of a famous radio show.

Another example I often come across, but I take it "I haven't a clue" is a sort of set-phrase, as you confirm.
Notice that plenty of these are from everyday speech or writing; that's partly because in some parts of Britain, eg, ... also because of affectation, and partly because many people have been taught not to use the word "got" when writing.

Do you think it is always possible not to use "got" in formal writing, or are there cases in which it is required lest you should sound not just formal but unlikely, foreign (this is not your case, of course) or ludicrous?
By the way, is "have got" actually considered colloquial by the English people? You know, I think Italian (my mother-tongue) dictionaries sometimes take excessively conservative positions, and I dare say the same is true for English, only I can't always resort to my ear in this case.

Reading your posts I gather there's an appreciable difference between "I have not" and "I haven't", "has not" and "hasn't", and "I have got" and "I've got". I didn't know it. As contracted verb forms are not appropriate in formal written communication, at least as far as I know, does one have to use "has not" or "have not"? I have my doubts because it has emerged from this thread that such verb forms, unlike their contractions "hasn't" and "haven't", sound archaic, practically unusable.
Bye, FB

Mrs. Palmer, in her way, was equally angry. 'She was determined to drop his acquaintance immediately, and she was very thankful that she had never been acquainted with him at all'. (Jane Austen)
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
You have missed the fact that there are actually three ... "Have you got an appointment?" "Do you have an appointment?"

Is the third way common in Briteng as well?

Yes.
The form with "do" is the one to use if ... in the question sentence, but fine in the statement sentence.

I see. Then it sounds normal in AmEng (I understand it's the usual way to conjugate "to have"), and ordinary or slightly formal in BritEng. I would have thought it sounded colloquial in BritEng, a sort of Americanism.

No, it sounds perfectly normal, maybe a little formal, there is no feeling of it being an Americanism. The first form, however sounds a little weird, it's something you might expect someone very old or grand to say, but not an ordinary person.
converting sentences which use it in a non-auxiliary way to ... brother" becomes "I have got two sisters and a brother"

As far as I know "I have got" is still regarded as a present perfect with a simple present meaning, isn't it?

Yes, but the point is that it seems increasingly the case that people feel the need to use this form where "have" exists only as a tense marker in the place of the form where "have" is the only verb and means "possess". It may have derived from cases where there was an recent of the subject actually going a getting whatever it is they now have, but as in the above example that need no longer be the case. Someone may say "I have got two sisters and a brother" without implying there was an action they did in order to get two sisters and a brother.
I would say that now the simple question forming usage is acceptable but formal, while the simple negation forming use has become archaic.

One more thing: 1) I haven't a car 2) I haven't it For some reason the second sentence sounds more unlikely to my non-native Eng speaker's ear. What about you?

Language change in action. It looks like the form where the object is a pronoun disappeared first, so your sentence 2) above isn't even understandable, while the form where the object is a noun is on the way out but hasn't yet gone, so your first sentence is understandable but doesn't sound right. However, "I haven't a clue" sounds fine, possibly just as a stock phrase which preserves an otherwise archaic form.

Matthew Huntbach
At 16:47:58 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Matthew Huntbach (Email Removed) wrote in :
Yes, but the point is that it seems increasingly the case that people feel the need to use this form ... and a brother" without implying there was an action they did in order to get two sisters and a brother.

Unless, of course, the speaker was Oedipus...
(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the fathering of offspring.)

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the fathering of offspring.)

But wouldn't that be "begotten", rather than "got"? I've never heard of "get" being used to replace the archaic "beget".
Cheers
Tony

Tony Mountifield
Work: (Email Removed) - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: (Email Removed) - http://tony.mountifield.org
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Yes, but the point is that it seems increasingly the ... they did in order to gettwo sisters and a brother.

Unless, of course, the speaker was Oedipus... (Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the fathering of offspring.)

As far as I can tell, not only was he wrong concerning a strict sense of the word "got," but he was wrong concerning any such use. There appears to be no use of "have got" to mean "to father offspring," and I have no reason to believe that it ever had that meaning. "Have get," yes, but "get" is a noun there, not a verb, as it is in "Have you got the time?"

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Show more