1 2 3
I would say "I didn't have a car" At school in the 1950s I was taught to avoid the use of "got"

Now that's interesting. Much of the usage of "to get" as an auxiliary (replacing "to have") is centred around the ... with an "unpleasant" or "saddening" feeling ("my dog got run over" is one of the examples that is always given).

New one on me. So who coined "I got lucky" and "Got milk?"? And when I say "I got married" I'm recalling a happy day and the beginning of a happy marriage. My children got a squillion GCSEs. My choice for MP was the one who got elected. My team were losing but Joey got the equaliser.
It might be fun to see how many people don't like using "to get", and why i.e. to see if it's certain demographics that shun the usage, and if that's connected to the "misery" factor.

I don't have any objection to using it. I've never associated it with misery.

John Dean
Oxford
I would say "I didn't have a car" At school in the 1950s I was taught to avoid the use of "got"

Now that's interesting. Much of the usage of "to get" as an auxiliary (replacing "to have") is centred around the ... i.e. to see if it's certain demographics that shun the usage, and if that's connected to the "misery" factor.

Nobody seems to have pointed out that "I hadn't got a car" sounds funny, period, unlike "He hasn't got a car," which.sounds fine to me. It is of course different in meaning from "He hasn't gotten a car" which suggests he was supposed to purchase/steal/whatever one but hasn't gotten around to it yet.
As to the "misery factor": Have I been messing the message of "I'm getting married next month" as an expression of misery all my life??? This so-called factor has gotten me curious. May I ask where (i.e., start with in what country) the example "my dog got run over" is "always given"? No place I've ever been, as far as I know. The news is saddening, of course, but not any sadder than "A truck ran over my dog."

Karl
Karl
Karl
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Now that's interesting. Much of the usage of "to get" ... over" is one of the examples that is always given).

New one on me. So who coined "I got lucky" and "Got milk?"? And when I say "I got married"

... Therein lies categorical proof.
I'm recalling a happy day and the beginning of a happy marriage. My children got a squillion GCSEs. My choice for MP was the one who got elected. My team were losing but Joey got the equaliser.

Only the marriage and MP ones use "got" as an auxiliary (well, as a copular, actually, but that's close enough for pudding) and I didn't declare it as a "rule"; just that it's a very common to use "to get" in place of "to have" or "to be" if there's a negative or unhappy nuance.
It might be fun to see how many people don't ... the usage, and if that's connected to the "misery" factor.

I don't have any objection to using it. I've never associated it with misery.

Maybe not knowingly, but I'll bet you use "got hurt", "got beaten", "got broken", etc. without giving it a second thought. Even usages like "got better" imply that there was something unpleasant involved. It's not until you look closely at such piddling details that you begin to see trends.
Now that's interesting. Much of the usage of "to get" ... the usage, and if that's connected to the "misery" factor.

Nobody seems to have pointed out that "I hadn't got a car" sounds funny, period, unlike "He hasn't got a ... Have I been messing the message of "I'm getting married next month" as an expression of misery all my life???

Abated misery. It follows soon enough.
This so-called factor has gotten me curious. May I ask where (i.e., start with in what country) the example "my dog got run over" is "always given"? No place I've ever been, as far as I know.

It's as common as muck in the UK (and therefore most of the English-speaking world).
Google gives over two-thousand hits on the exact phrase "my dog got run over"; I imagine many of them will be from educational sites (but I'm far too lazy to go through them to check).
Either way, it's a lot of dead dogs.
The news is saddening, of course, but not any sadder than "A truck ran over my dog."

That's very US-ish. I wouldn't use "truck" (unless railways or flatbeds were involved), and, because I'm talking about what happened to the dog, not what happened to the vehicle, I'd use the passive voice "My dog got run over by a lorry".
Quick Google on "got run over" (sans doggies):
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%67%6f%74%20%72%75%6e%20%6f%76%65%72%22 ... Although the first fold appears to be overconcerned with grandmas and reindeer, so the dogs get a break.
Surely it's the passive, indicating the lack of control or influence of the subject, not the verb "to get", that gives the element of sadness?

My poor old deaf blind dog got run over - there was nothing he could do about it. Sad.
My stupid dog chased the wheels of a lorry and got himself run over. Not so sad.
Chris R
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Nobody seems to have pointed out that "I hadn't got a car" sounds funny, period, unlike "He hasn't got a ... "He hasn't gotten a car" which suggests he was supposed to purchase/steal/whatever one but hasn't gotten around to it yet.

Not to me (BrE). "I couldn't go to the party because I hadn't got a car" sounds fine to me. I would avoid the "got" in formal writing, though.

Chris R
New one on me. So who coined "I got lucky" and "Got milk?"? And when I say "I got married"

... Therein lies categorical proof.

Shouldn't visit your own experiences on others. As I say, the day I got married was a great day and the subsequent forty years have been outstanding. I'm tempted to say " ... in the subsequent forty years things have got better and better " but no doubt you'd spring on that with some crap on the lines of "Ah If they 'got better' then they must have been bad to start with - my point is proved!"
I'm recalling a happy day and the beginning of a ... elected. My team were losing but Joey got the equaliser.

Only the marriage and MP ones use "got" as an auxiliary

Well now, you spoke so movingly of "Much of the usage of "to get" as an auxiliary (replacing "to have")..." and yet you don't think "My children got a squillion GCSEs" is a version of "My children have passed a squillion GCSEs"?
I didn't declare it as a "rule"; just that it's a very common to use "to get" in place of "to have" or "to be" if there's a negative or unhappy nuance.

I know you didn't declare it as a rule. Why on earth introduce an idea that neither of us have expressed? You say it's very common. I think it's just as common to use it where there is a positive or happy nuance. You make a list of the negative and unhappy nuances and I'll match them, example for example, with positive and happy ones. Though, strictly, if you thought about it you could do it yourself.
I don't have any objection to using it. I've never associated it with misery.

Maybe not knowingly,

Oh, you think I don't know what I'm saying? And yet I see over the years in this froup that I got complimented regularly on my usage.
but I'll bet you use "got hurt", "got beaten", "got broken", etc. without giving it a second thought.

And I'll bet you use "got laid", "got praised", "got promoted" etc without giving it a first thought.
Even usages like "got better" imply that there was something unpleasant involved.

I think that's little short of brilliant. So a word is associated with the negative if it's used in a negative context but also when it's used in a positive context from which may be inferred an earlier, negative state? So "I am very well" is negate because it implies I was once very ill? Genius.
It's not until you look closely at such piddling details that you begin to see trends.

I see it used universally. You wish to single out the 'bad' usages? Your privilege. Fact is, it's a neutral word and can be applied to good and bad. If you can't think of enough examples of the good to counterbalance your obsession with the bad, well, you just can't.

John Dean
Oxford
... Therein lies categorical proof.

Shouldn't visit your own experiences on others. As I say, the day I got married was a great day and ... of "Ah If they 'got better' then they must have been bad to start with - my point is proved!"

Ah If they 'got better' then they must have been bad to start with - my point is proved!"
Only the marriage and MP ones use "got" as an auxiliary

Well now, you spoke so movingly of "Much of the usage of "to get" as an auxiliary (replacing "to have")..." and yet you don't think "My children got a squillion GCSEs" is a version of "My children have passed a squillion GCSEs"?

No, it isn't. It would be "My children got passed a squillion GCSEs", which is nonsense.
"Got", in your GCSE sentence, is a main verb. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing using "to get" in place of "to have" or "to be". In order for such a replacement to be made, both versions of the sentence have to make the same point.
I didn't declare it as a "rule"; just that it's ... or "to be" if there's a negative or unhappy nuance.

I know you didn't declare it as a rule. Why on earth introduce an idea that neither of us have ... example for example, with positive and happy ones. Though, strictly, if you thought about it you could do it yourself.

It wouldn't wash.
Using "got" adds a negative nuance.
Compare:
"Pete was hit by a car on Friday"
and:
"Pete got hit by a car on Friday".
The "was" version is matter-of-fact; the "got" version is more emotional. It works that way almost every time which is why I, quite rightly, described it as "common".
The comparison is not between main/auxiliary verbs, and there is no meter, to measure "nice" and "nasty" usages of "got".
The point is precisely as above, and as I have consistently stated: Using "got" in place of the "big" auxiliaries adds a negative nuance.

(Why is it that so many people seem to think that there are prizes to be won in discussions?)
I see it used universally.

Well, since you seem unable to tell the difference between a main verb and an auxiliary, I'm not too sure know what you're seeing.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Surely it's the passive, indicating the lack of control or influence of the subject, not the verb "to get", that ... about it. Sad. My stupid dog chased the wheels of a lorry and got himself run over. Not so sad.

You don't want to go saying that the passive adds nuance; not today.
Show more