Welcome to MyRagan Forum. Browse through any forum, sign in or register here and you'll be on your way to creating your own discussions and posting replies for the whole community to see :D
with people using "I've got," "we've got," and even "she's got." Am I the only pulling my hair out over the use of these nasty contractions, that when written out in their entirety, are an utter abomination of the English language? It's an epidemic. Fellow grammar nerds, how do we make it stop?
A ruler across the knuckles might provide sufficient negative reinforcement to prevent recurrences in one's presence. Sadly, many people couldn't care less if they are correct or not. "I ain't got no..." is a further travesty one hears frequently.
I don't have a problem with that sentence construction, depending on the audience.
I think people are much more likely to say, "I've got a problem" than "I have a problem." So if your goal is to sound conversational (internal newsletter or blog), you're better off with the former. If you're writing an executive memo, you're better off with the latter.
I don't think that the phrase "I have got a problem" is an "utter abomination of the English language." It merely contains a superfluous word.
As a resident of Pennsylvania, I was appalled that our license plate for many years read "You've got a friend in Pennsylvania." Really?! Can't you just HAVE a friend in Pennsylvania? No one in all of the Commonwealth system could detect the glaring grammatical error in the license plate? Sigh. So I feel your pain. However, it's becoming so common that I suspect it will become accepted pretty soon. (Nevertheless, I will ALWAYS correct it when it comes across my desk!)
I've got a solution! : ) Actually, this is one of my pet word peeves, and I'm pretty forgiving. I think the only solution is one misuttered (or written) contraction at a time. When I see it in copy, I change it. When my kids utter it, I correct them. I was just reading this morning how a couple of guys started an International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Maybe we could start a "I have a problem with I've got" Day?
Well, it does sound funny, but it is not grammatically incorrect. "I've" in this case is a contraction of the auxiliary verb "have," which is an indicator of the present perfect tense. It is also a common usage, though it may sound funny. "I have" sounds more proper than "I've got" but both are ok, gramatically speaking.
You've got to get over it! I wrote a piece for Ragan on the very subject. Here it goes:
I recently overheard someone explaining to another that it was improper English to use “have got” in a sentence, and more correct to say “You have mail" instead of “You’ve got mail.”
Hmmm.
Usage can fall into a number of categories, but “more correct” is not one of them. It can be preferred, formal or informal, or altogether incorrect, so the trick is to determine your preference and the context. Have got may be informal, but it’s not improper. That is, not only is there nothing wrong with it, but often it may be preferred over have in certain situations. It can also place emphasis – or even urgency -- on the object.
Take a look at these examples:
• I have a headache.
• I’ve got a headache.
• Have I got a headache!
• You have to get out of here.
• You’ve got to get out of here.
Songwriters have been known to favor have got, and their lyrics are indelibly impressed into our pop culture. It would be tough to imagine Frank Sinatra crooning, “I have a crush on you, Sweetie Pie,” Sonny and Cher mooning, “I have you, Babe,” or a Hit Parade favorite that proclaimed, “I Have a Gal in Kalamazoo.” The American TV classic "I've Got a Secret" and the BBC's quiz favorite "Have I Got News for You" are other examples.
In contrast, the Pennsylvania government once caused a stir when it adopted a tourism campaign that promised: You've Got a Friend in Pennsylvania. Newspaper editors and state officials were inundated with letters from irate constituents, demanding to know what idiot approved a grammatically incorrect slogan. Well, it wasn't incorrect, but that didn't stop the protests. Tourist officials ditched the campaign and have since adopted a succession of other, more grammatically "acceptable" state slogans, none nearly as memorable as the one that caused all that fuss.
America's Dairy Farmers and Milk Processors experienced a totally different reaction to its now long-lived, much-copied and still-going-strong "mustache" campaign, which asks: "Got Milk?" You've got to admit that "Do You Have Milk?" simply does not have the same ring.
What really sends me through the roof are people who who use have and got together. "I've got a cold." No, you just have a cold. Sheesh. Also, what's with people still thinking is fun to rip off the "Got Milk?" theme. No, I don't got coffee, art or barbecue food. I was told recently that it's cool and hip to use got in advertising copy. Call me an ol' fuddy-duddy, but I didn't realize cool and hip replaced proper grammar.
It isn't an abomination or a new thing. It's archaic English and the usage is more common in the former British colonies of the US and Canada than it is in modern Britain, just as Quebecois French and Creole use words and phrasings no longer used in France. "Have got" is redundant in written English, true, but it slides easily off the tongue and into the ear. Here in Canada, people often leave out the "have" in spoken communication: "Who's got the keys?"
I agree that got is an utter abomination best left to the use of wise guys.
But Denise has opened my eyes to a world were having milk and having babes just isn't the same.
I guess I've got to open my mind.
I think this is an issue of personal preference. Even my beloved 1969 American Heritage Dictionary lists as a meaning for "get," "To have obtained or receive and now have. Used only in the form of the present perfect, and generally equivalent to have: I've got a large collection of books." By the way, this is only one of 36 definitions for "get" as a transitive and intransitive verb (not to mention half a column of phrases, from "get by" to "get nowhere"). Some definitions are marked as "informal"; the above is not, although I think it does lend a casual tone and I keep that in mind when deciding whther the idiom is appropriate for a specific usage.
"Ain't got," on the other hand, is a whole different story. I still fall back on the childhood chant, "Don't use ain't 'cause it ain't in the dictionary." (Flipping the pages of my trusty guide, it lists "ain't," but says its Usage Panel "strongly condemn[s]" it except for "humor, shock, or other special effect.")
Okay, now I need someone to come physically wrest the dictionary out of my hands...
Using "got" shows a willingness to compromise. Using "like," as in "I was like going to, you know, like the mall," is even more egregious. ARRRRGGGGHHH!!!
