# no tiene nada que ver contigo



## Alguienanonimo

Hola compañeros

Tengo una duda 

Existen diferencias? No sé si se puede intercambiar

Ejemplo:

Eso no tiene nada que ver contigo

It doesn't have anything to do with you

It's nothing to do with you


----------



## Agró

Alguienanonimo said:


> Hola compañeros
> 
> Tengo una duda
> 
> Existen diferencias? No sé si se puede intercambiar
> 
> Ejemplo:
> 
> Eso no tiene nada que ver contigo
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with you
> 
> It's nothing to do with you


Son lo mismo, pero ten en cuenta que la segunda frase no es "*It is* nothing...", sino "*It has* nothing..." (contraído en "It's nothing..."); es decir, no se trata de "be nothing to do", sino de "have nothing to do", que es lo mismo que "Not have anything to do".

Si te he liado más, avísame.


----------



## Alguienanonimo

Agró said:


> Son lo mismo, pero ten en cuenta que la segunda frase no es "*It is* nothing...", sino "*It has* nothing..." (contraído en "It's nothing..."); es decir, no se trata de "be nothing to do", sino de "have nothing to do", que es lo mismo que "Not have anything to do".
> 
> Si te he liado más, avísame.



Hola compañero

Seguro?

do with - English-Spanish Dictionary - WordReference.com

En el ejemplo: this is nothing to do with you


----------



## Agró

Estaba convencido de que era "has ('s) to do", pero no. Puede ser "is". Disculpa.
Ahora, yo no veo diferencias.


----------



## Mr.Dent

It doesn't have anything to do with you -- This sounds the best.

It's nothing to do with you -- This is correct, but I wouldn't use it. I can't explain the reason; it just doesn't sound good to me.


----------



## sound shift

Mr.Dent said:


> It's nothing to do with you -- This is correct, but I wouldn't use it. I can't explain the reason; it just doesn't sound good to me.


It sounds fine to me. I use it.


----------



## Agró

@Mr Shift,
¿qué dirías que estás usando cuando dices _"It*'s* nothing to do with you"_? ¿_Is_ o _Has_?


----------



## sound shift

"Is", Agró.


----------



## Agró

OK, then. Gracias.


----------



## anahiseri

It *has *nothing to do with you. 


Agró said:


> @Mr Shift,
> ¿qué dirías que estás usando cuando dices _"It*'s* nothing to do with you"_? ¿_Is_ o _Has_?


----------



## anahiseri

In my Merriam-Webster and my McMillan it says 
*have *something to do with.

In the online Cambdrige Dictionary it says * be / have    ? ? ? *


----------



## Mr.Dent

Agró said:


> @Mr Shift,
> ¿qué dirías que estás usando cuando dices _"It*'s* nothing to do with you"_? ¿_Is_ o _Has_?


Is. 


Mr.Dent said:


> It's nothing to do with you -- This is correct, but I wouldn't use it. I can't explain the reason; it just doesn't sound good to me





sound shift said:


> It sounds fine to me. I use it.


 My guess is that  this is a difference between American and British English.


----------



## sound shift

Mr.Dent said:


> Is.
> 
> 
> My guess is that  this is a difference between American and British English.


That's my guess too.

No le encuentro sentido a "It has nothing to do with you."


----------



## Agró

sound shift said:


> That's my guess too.
> 
> No le encuentro sentido a "It has nothing to do with you."


¿Y a la versión con "got" ("It has *got *nothing to do with you."), le encuentras sentido? ¿Se usa en GB?
Recordemos al respecto a la gran Tina: _"What'*s* (has) love *got *to do with it?"_


----------



## sound shift

Agró said:


> ¿Y a la versión con "got" ("It has *got *nothing to do with you."), le encuentras sentido? ¿Se usa en GB?


No, no le encuentro sentido a eso. Es lo mismo que "It has nothing to do with you." Digo "It's [it is] nothing to do with you" al igual que digo "It is has none of your business." 





Agró said:


> Recordemos al respecto a la gran Tina: _"What'*s* (has) love *got *to do with it?"_


Eso tiene un significado distinto: Equivale a decir que el amor es irrelevante.


----------



## Mr.Dent

Agró said:


> ¿Y a la versión con "got" ("It has *got *nothing to do with you."), le encuentras sentido?


Se usa en EEUU.


----------



## Bevj

I also say 'It's got nothing to do with you'.
I can't explain the difference but to me the two versions are not exactly the same.


----------



## gengo

sound shift said:


> No le encuentro sentido a "It has nothing to do with you."



That's surprising, because I think even in BrEn you would say "What has that got to do with you?" and "What does that have to do with you?"  That is, you use _to have_ rather than _to be_.  No?

Agró, I agree with you that in the sentence "It's nothing to do with you," at least in AmEn, the contraction would be "it has," and not "it is."  The thing is that in AmEn we wouldn't usually contract the words in that sentence, and would say "It has nothing to do with you."  We do indeed contract them in constructions such as "It's [=it has] been a long time," but only when the "has" is an auxiliary verb.  When it is a main verb, we don't contract it.  I believe this is not the case in BrEn, but I'm not sure.


----------



## sound shift

gengo said:


> That's surprising, because I think even in BrEn you would say "What has that got to do with you?" and "What does that have to do with you?"  That is, you use _to have_ rather than _to be_. No?


I agreed with Mr.Dent that there appeared to be an AmE-BrE difference, but then Bevj posted and made the matter appear less clear-cut. In the affirmative I say "That is nothing to do with you." I see no reason to use a different verb for the interrogative.


----------



## Wandering JJ

gengo said:


> When it is a main verb, we don't contract it.  I believe this is not the case in BrEn, but I'm not sure.


The difference probably gets lost because in BrE we are more likely to say "It's* got* nothing to do with you", where "it's" = "it has" as in AmE. See Bevj post #17.


----------



## SevenDays

Once a form is contracted, it's not_ always_ easy to see what the original form was. "It's" can be "it is" or "it has." Regarding this thread, H.W. Fowler had this to say in his _A Dictionary of Modern English Grammar_: 

_The two forms may be paraphrased thus: It has nothing to do with you = It has no function to perform with you; it is nothing to do with you = It is not a matter concerned with you.
_
Now, whether people see those two equivalencies "now" may be debatable (the Dictionary was published in 1926), but there's a larger point: we have a fixed expression ("it's nothing to do with you"), and once an expression becomes "fixed," it stays like that. So, in this context, the question _Is this "it is" or "it has"? _is no longer relevant.


----------



## gengo

Wandering JJ said:


> The difference probably gets lost because in BrE we are more likely to say "It's* got* nothing to do with you", where "it's" = "it has" as in AmE. See Bevj post #17.



What I meant was that I think I've heard British speakers say things like "I've no money left," whereas in AmEn we don't contract the main verb that way (at least, most of us don't).  We do contract it as an auxiliary verb:  I've spent all my money.

Is my understanding correct?


----------



## Wandering JJ

gengo said:


> What I meant was that I think I've heard British speakers say things like "I've no money left," whereas in AmEn we don't contract the main verb that way (at least, most of us don't).  We do contract it as an auxiliary verb:  I've spent all my money.
> 
> Is my understanding correct?


Your understanding is perfectly correct.


----------



## sound shift

Yes, but in my experience of BrE we don't say "It's two garages" to mean "It [a house] has two garages" - so I cannot interpret a BrE speaker's "It's nothing to do with you" as "It has nothing to do with you".


----------



## Wandering JJ

sound shift said:


> Yes, but in my experience of BrE we don't say "It's two garages" to mean "It [a house] has two garages" - so I cannot interpret a BrE speaker's "It's nothing to do with you" as "It has nothing to do with you".


Just for clarity, would you interpret "It's got nothing to do with you" as "it has got..."?


----------



## sound shift

Of course - since "it is got" is ungrammatical.


----------



## WhoCaresMan

Agró said:


> @Mr Shift,
> ¿qué dirías que estás usando cuando dices _"It*'s* nothing to do with you"_? ¿_Is_ o _Has_?



'Has' definitely.

'Is' sort of works but it sounds very unnatural.


----------



## sound shift

WhoCaresMan said:


> 'Is' sort of works but it sounds very unnatural.


If it were a matter of nature, there would be only one answer to this. The way it sounds varies according to what's conventional locally.


----------



## WhoCaresMan

sound shift said:


> If it were a matter of nature, there would be only one answer to this. The way it sounds varies according to what's conventional locally.



Yes that's correct, but I'm pretty sure the original phrase is "to have to do with" (= tener que ver con)


----------



## sound shift

I have no idea what the 'original' phrase was, but post 21) quotes a well-known (at least in the UK) dictionary of grammar that says that two versions - one with "is" and one with "has" - were in existence at the time of writing. That squares with my experience in 2018.


----------



## Alguienanonimo

Muchas gracias a todos compañeros !

Interesante debate.


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> Once a form is contracted, it's not_ always_ easy to see what the original form was. "It's" can be "it is" or "it has." Regarding this thread, H.W. Fowler had this to say in his _A Dictionary of Modern English Grammar_:
> 
> _The two forms may be paraphrased thus: It has nothing to do with you = It has no function to perform with you; it is nothing to do with you = It is not a matter concerned with you.
> _
> Now, whether people see those two equivalencies "now" may be debatable (the Dictionary was published in 1926), but there's a larger point: we have a fixed expression ("it's nothing to do with you"), and once an expression becomes "fixed," it stays like that. So, in this context, the question _Is this "it is" or "it has"? _is no longer relevant.


For me, the idea of "It has nothing to do with you" is that "it" and "you" are unrelated, that whatever "it" does it does independently of you, that it does not affect you or concern you.

"It is nothing to do with you" means "It is not something that has anything to do with you."

"It's nothing" is short for "It is nothing", not "It has nothing"; but "It's got nothing" is short for "It has got nothing."


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> For me, the idea of "It has nothing to do with you" is that "it" and "you" are unrelated, that whatever "it" does it does independently of you, that it does not affect you or concern you.
> 
> "It is nothing to do with you" means "It is not something that has anything to do with you."
> 
> "It's nothing" is short for "It is nothing", not "It has nothing"; but "It's got nothing" is short for "It has got nothing."



I think I agree with all of that.  I wonder if that nuance would be translated as follows.

_It has [got] nothing to do with you = No tiene nada que ver contigo
It is nothing to do with you = No es nada que tenga que ver contigo_


----------



## S.V.

_No es nada que tenga que ver contigo, No es nada que te concierna_, _No es nada que te incumba, No es nada que te importe.

Nada que ver _works by itself, as an answer, but _"No es nada que ver contigo" _does sound odd. In English, could you answer with_ isn't_?

_It's nothing to do with you!_ _Are you sure it isn't?
_​Or in the past,_ It was nothing to do with you! _I've never heard this one either. Though_ "no era nada que ver"_ _sorta_ works. _ _


----------



## Quirce

gengo said:


> It is nothing to do with you = No es nada que tiene que ver contigo


No es nada que *tenga* que ver contigo.


----------



## Forero

S.V. said:


> _No es nada que tenga que ver contigo, No es nada que te concierna_, _No es nada que te incumba, No es nada que te importe.
> 
> Nada que ver _works by itself, as an answer, but _"No es nada que ver contigo" _does sound odd. In English, could you answer with_ isn't_?
> 
> _It's nothing to do with you!_ _Are you sure it isn't?_​


"Are you sure it is?" would make sense, but "Are you sure it isn't [nothing to do with you]?" would be a double negative.





> Or in the past,_ It was nothing to do with you! _I've never heard this one either. Though_ "no era nada que ver"_ _sorta_ works. _ _


Yes, "It was nothing to do with you" makes sense too.


----------



## S.V.

Oh, I see. Then it is not "fixed", just a bit strange to us.  Thank you, Forero.


----------



## Forero

S.V. said:


> Oh, I see. Then it is not "fixed", just a bit strange to us.  Thank you, Forero.


It is a just little bit strange to me too, but it seems an obvious way to say "No es nada que tenga que ver contigo."


----------

