"Murderess." "Primitive totalitarian." "Three times over - for what right has /she/ to say that /we/ can't exist . Crypto-criminal mind!"

It's an excerpt from the book "Time Enough for Love", by Robert A. Heinlein.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441810764/qid=1119563579/sr=1-1/ref=sr 1 1/103-8342050-6367013?v=glance&s=books

shortened: http://snipurl.com/fskq
You can get the context here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0441810764/103-8342050-6367013?%5Fencoding=UTF8&resultsPage=2&key...

shortened: http://snipurl.com/fskr
I can't, 'cause I'm not registered and don't mean to at present.

We've already discussed about the limited usage of "to have" as an auxiliary without "got"; here's a wonderful contribution by Adrian Bailey, for example:

shortened: http://snipurl.com/fsks
How can the sentence from Heinlein's book be accounted for, in light of what I've gathered on the matter? I've a hunch that it's because "right" is an abstract noun (1), but I don't know whether that sentence could still be said or written nowadays.
(1) It seems to me that got-less forms of the auxiliary "to have" are still common when the object is an abstract noun: "I haven't time", "I haven't the energy to...", "I haven't the foggiest idea" etc.
Ciao, FB

"Is this Miss Prism a female of repellent aspect, remotely connected with education?" "She is the most cultivated of ladies, and the very picture of respectability" "It is obviously the same person". ("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde)
"Murderess." "Primitive totalitarian." "Three times over - for what right has /she/ to say that /we/ can't exist . Crypto-criminal ... of "to have" as an auxiliary without "got"; here's a wonderful contribution by Adrian Bailey, for example: http://groups.google.it/group/alt.usage.english/msg/1434262d0abb000e?q=g:thl2899298562d&dq=&hl=it... shortened: http://snipurl.com/fsks

Good heavens, it's Google Gruppi!
How can the sentence from Heinlein's book be accounted for, in light of what I've gathered on the matter? I've ... the object is an abstract noun: "I haven't time", "I haven't the energy to...", "I haven't the foggiest idea" etc.

I think you mean the main verb "have" instead of the auxiliary "have" with "got". None of your examples is idiomatic for me, by the way.

I think your quotation is one of of Heinlein's possibly archaic Britannicisms. The same characters use "***" later in the book, as I recall. (I reread my copy of TEFL till it fell apart.)

Well, "what right has she to say..." wasn't colloquial American English in 197whatever, and isn't now (and won't be in the fourth millennium A.D.). It would be "what right does she have to say..." But I see your question is about "got". I believe that in AmE, forms of "have got" are rare in questions. "Does she have a dog?" sounds more likely to me than "Has she got a dog?" The "got" is even rarer in wh-questions. "What kind of car does he have?" sounds much more likely than "What kind of car has he got?"
One exception is among those speakers who use "got" as a present-tense verb (highly non-standard). They might say, "What kind of car does he got?" Another exception, which I'd call colloquial rather than non-standard, is the elision of "have you". "Got a problem with that?"

Jerry Friedman
I think your quotation is one of of Heinlein's possibly archaic Britannicisms. The same characters use "***" later in the book,as I recall. (I reread my copy of TEFL till it fell apart.)

Gosh! I hope {I still have/I've still got mine}: bought it in Benghazi back in nineteen-hundred-and-scared-to-death and never got round to reading it. I'll make the effort to find it since you esteem it so highly. (I think I went off him politically: he suddenly seemed unnecessarily Cold-War when I read the one Harry Harrison satirised.)

Mike.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
"Murderess." "Primitive totalitarian." "Three times over - for what right ... Enough for Love", by Robert A. Heinlein. shortened: http://snipurl.com/fsks

Good heavens, it's Google Gruppi!

What do you mean?
How can the sentence from Heinlein's book be accounted for, ... haven't the energy to...", "I haven't the foggiest idea" etc.

I think you mean the main verb "have" instead of the auxiliary "have" with "got". None of your examples is idiomatic for me, by the way.

Are you American? I think my examples (which I've found in real current British English) are idiomatic, though maybe old-fashioned.
I think your quotation is one of of Heinlein's possibly archaic Britannicisms.

I suspected as much. The future often resembles the past in books and films.
So, is there a BritEng native speaker who could say whether "what right has she to say that... ?" was idiomatic at Heinlein's time and whether it still is, in a formal register?
The same characters use "***" later in the book, as I recall. (I reread my copy of TEFL till it fell apart.)

"" is not archaic, is it?
Well, "what right has she to say..." wasn't colloquial American English in 197whatever, and isn't now (and won't be in the fourth millennium A.D.). It would be "what right does she have to say..." But I see your question is about "got".

Basically I'd like to know why it's written that way, and not with a do-form of "to have". I don't think "got" would fit, come to think of it.

Bye, FB

"While I'm here, might I make a few changes? I adore my bedroom, but do you think I could have my curtains washed? I believe they're red, but I should like to make sure."
(Cold Comfort Farm, the film)
So, is there a BritEng native speaker who could say whether "what right has she to say that... ?" was idiomatic at Heinlein's time and whether it still is, in a formal register?

Well, here is one who has some difficulty with the concept that there are forms of English in which it is not.
Well, "what right has she to say..." wasn't colloquial American English in 197whatever, and isn't now (and won't be in the fourth millennium A.D.).

I am astonished. But it may be worth noting that Heinlein was born in
1907.

Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
(-)
Well, "what right has she to say..." wasn't colloquial American English in 197whatever, and isn't now (and won't be in ... wh-questions. "What kind of car does he have?" sounds much more likely than "What kind of car has he got?"

Yet I can hear, with great clarity, an American saying "what sorta car's he got?" . Substitute 'sort of' for 'sorta' and it's colloquial rather than sub-standard. Perhaps it's "sort" not "kind" that does it.
One exception is among those speakers who use "got" as a present-tense verb (highly non-standard). They might say, "What kind of car does he got?" Another exception, which I'd call colloquial rather than non-standard, is the elision of "have you". "Got a problem with that?"

Except that, whenever I've heard it, it seems almost always to be "You godda problem widdat?" Unfairly, I see Chicago trying to have broad shoulders.
Try out our live chat room.
Esteemed. Maybe I should have made it clear that I was a teenager during all of those rereadings. I don't know how I'd like it if I reread it now, and I definitely don't know how you'll like it if you read it for the first time now.
I'll say that it has a lot of fun stuff, that you have to not mind escapism (but you bought it, QED), and that I consider it central to Heinlein's post-Harsh-Mistress work, for what that's worth.
(I think I went off him politically: he suddenly seemed unnecessarily Cold-War when I read the one Harry Harrison satirised.)

There are political things in TEFL that one could disagree with, but only a few, and no Cold War that I remember.

Jerry Friedman
You bet.
I think my examples (which I've found in real current British English) are idiomatic, though maybe old-fashioned.

I won't argue. I was just giving you an American data point.
I think your quotation is one of of Heinlein's possibly ... (I reread my copy of TEFL till it fell apart.)

"" is not archaic, is it?

I don't think so. I meant "***" as an example (=BrE "for an example"?) of a Britannicism, not of the "possibly archaic" part.
Well, "what right has she to say..." wasn't colloquial American ... to say..." But I see your question is about "got".

Basically I'd like to know why it's written that way, and not with a do-form of "to have". I don't think "got" would fit, come to think of it.

An idiosyncrasy of Heinlein's, in my opinion.

Jerry Friedman