# Have vs have got



## _aila

A friend of mine who is learning english asked me what the difference is between saying "I have a car" and "I have got a car". I was completely unable to point at any sematical or other differences, and was hoping maybe someone could help me out, with both identifying the difference and perhaps give the equivalents in italian?


----------



## cecil

_aila said:
			
		

> A friend of mine who is learning english asked me what the difference is between saying "I have a car" and "I have got a car". I was completely unable to point at any sematical or other differences, and was hoping maybe someone could help me out, with both identifying the difference and perhaps give the equivalents in italian?


 
I don't see any difference in meaning, but "I have got..." would almost certainly be expressed by "I've got a car."

cecil


----------



## jimreilly

cecil said:
			
		

> I don't see any difference in meaning, but "I have got..." would almost certainly be expressed by "I've got a car."
> 
> cecil



Cecil is quite right about "I've got" instead of "I have got". It's a little more casual than "I have" which is a direct way of indicating possession. ("Ho una macchina"). "I've got" can mean, aside from simple possession, that I've just gotten one, perhaps for some particular purpose, e.g. I needed a car for a trip, my friend offered to loan me one, so "I've got a car for the trip". So while it means "Ho una macchina" it can also mean (sort of) "Ho trovato una macchina". Hope this helps, my Italian is REALLY rusty.

Also, you would be more likely to write "I have a car" and to say "I've got a car".


----------



## _aila

Thanks, that helped!  Now it remains to see if I'm able to explain this somewhat subtle difference in Italian... :-/


----------



## Red Frog

I was always told that 'I have' is American English and 'I've got' is more British English, which means in the basic sense there probably wouldn't be any difference in Italian. (The basic sense meaning just possession, rather than jimreilly's interesting nuance above about having found something.)


----------



## Gianni2

True, we usually say 'I've got', but when you want to emphasize a statement, you would say 'I have GOT to get to bed early tonight or I'll be a wreck tomorrow.'
Gianni


----------



## shamblesuk

Care here, 'I have GOT to get to bed' is nothing to do with 'I have got....' in the sense being discussed here. 

It is the equivalent of 'Devo andare a letto......' rather than of 'avere'



			
				Gianni2 said:
			
		

> True, we usually say 'I've got', but when you want to emphasize a statement, you would say 'I have GOT to get to bed early tonight or I'll be a wreck tomorrow.'
> Gianni


----------



## cecil

Gianni2 said:
			
		

> True, we usually say 'I've got', but when you want to emphasize a statement, you would say 'I have GOT to get to bed early tonight or I'll be a wreck tomorrow.'
> Gianni


 
Gianni,

I think Shamblesuk is right. "I've got a car." = "I have a car."  "I've got to get up" has a totally different meaning: "I must get up." (Devo...)

cecil


----------



## shamblesuk

Ed adesso, devo andare per forza a letto. E' tardi!


----------



## panjandrum

Red Frog said:
			
		

> I was always told that 'I have' is American English and 'I've got' is more British English, [...]


"I've got" would not be very common in all parts of the UK.

HERE IS A LINK to a recent discussion of this subject in English-Only.


----------



## carrickp

One other subtle point: You can use "have got" for emphasis or contrast:

"Are you flying your own plane to the seashore this summer."

"No. I don't have the plane any more. But I have got a car, so I'm going to drive."


----------



## Gianni2

shamblesuk said:
			
		

> Care here, 'I have GOT to get to bed' is nothing to do with 'I have got....' in the sense being discussed here.
> 
> It is the equivalent of 'Devo andare a letto......' rather than of 'avere'


 
OK. Got it!  Grazie.


----------



## Mago-Merlino

Usare solamente "got" si può/non si può?
Per esempio :
1) "You've got powerful attacks!"
2) "You got powerful attacks!"

Se la risposta è si, (perkè mi pare di averlo sentito) immagino che il "got" da solo sia molto informale, quindi se devo riportare la frase per iscritto dovrò usare per forza "have got" oppure anche sulla carte si può optareper la seconda versione?


----------



## Minci

Penso che got senza have abbia un altro significato (passato di get); mentre have got ha proprio il senso di possesso.


----------



## francefrance

Mago-Merlino said:


> Usare solamente "got" si può/non si può?
> Per esempio :
> 1) "You've got powerful attacks!"
> 2) "You got powerful attacks!"
> 
> Se la risposta è si, (perkè mi pare di averlo sentito) immagino che il "got" da solo sia molto informale, quindi se devo riportare la frase per iscritto dovrò usare per forza "have got" oppure anche sulla carte si può optareper la seconda versione?



Hai ragione, anch'io l'ho sentito spesso, ma solo nella lingua parlata o in testi che utilizzavano un registro informale che la ricalcava. 
Però se proprio vuoi snellire la frase, usa _have _senza _got_...


----------



## fitter.happier

Sì, può essere utilizzato in sostituzione di _have got,_ ma è molto colloquiale. Un esempio che mi viene in mente è "_nice eyes you got there!_" oppure "_I got a couple of words for you"_

Comunque, come dice francefrance, per snellire la frase è meglio usare _have _da solo


----------



## Leo57

fitter.happier said:


> Sì, può essere utilizzato in sostituzione di _have got,_ *ma è molto colloquiale*. Un esempio che mi viene in mente è "_nice eyes you got there!_" oppure "_I got a couple of words for you"_
> 
> Comunque, come dice francefrance, per snellire la frase è meglio usare _have _da solo   Good advice!


 
Go to:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/get

Scroll down to "usage note" as you will find it particularly helpful.

Regards
Leo


----------



## shardaneng

Hi.
I have a doubt that doesn't have anything to do with your doubt but it regards your sentence so...I hope you don't mind.

"I've some doubt about..."

In this case weren't you supposed to use these forms: "I've got a doubt" or "I have a doubt"? 

I mean, isn't the contraction of the verb "to have" impossible without "got"?



> *Discussione divisa da qui: si consiglia che*


----------



## entrapta

Sicuramente 'I've some doubt' non è corretto. Io direi 'I have a doubt' ma decisamente evitando 'got'.


----------



## Einstein

_I have a doubt_ or _I have some doubts_.

You can use _I've_ without _got_, it sounds a little more formal. I wouldn't avoid _got_ at all costs as entrapta says, but it's not essential.


----------



## shardaneng

Einstein said:


> _I have a doubt_ or _I have some doubts_.
> 
> You can use _I've_ without _got_, it sounds a little more formal. I wouldn't avoid _got_ at all costs as entrapta says, but it's not essential.



I have always thought you couldn't (use I've without got in cases like this one). My grammar says for example:

I've got a sister (right)
I have a sister (right)
I've a sister (wrong)

Should I throw my grammar away?


----------



## entrapta

No ha detto la stessa cosa: infatti usa 'I have a doubt' non 'I've a doubt'. Casomai 'I've got a doubt'


----------



## shardaneng

Scusami, non ha detto: "You can use I've without got"?

Vuol dire puoi usarlo anche senza got, no?


----------



## entrapta

Scusa non avevo visto; mi pare molto colloquiale e non lo scriverei. Chiaramente è un po' bending the rules della grammatica.


----------



## Einstein

La contrazione con "got" è informale ed è usata nell'inglese parlato, soprattutto BE; in AE, particolarmente nell'interrogativo e nel negativo, si tende invece ad usare "do" (Do you have a dog?) e questa forma è ormai diffusa anche in GB. Comunque non è sbagliato, solo meno usato, dire _I've a few doubts_. Se lo dici nessuno ti spara!


----------



## Leo57

shardaneng said:


> I have always thought you couldn't (use I've without got in cases like this one). My grammar says for example:
> 
> I've got a sister (right)
> I have a sister (right)
> I've a sister (wrong)
> 
> Should I throw my grammar *book* away?  No, but I know where you're coming from!


I hope we are not in trouble continuing with this, but below is a link for you.  By the way, sometimes _it is advisable_ to avoid using "got" as it can be _overdone_, but I cannot ever imagine saying or hearing:  I have you under my skin.   (I've got you under my skin.)
havegot.htm
Ciao
Leo


_p.s. People will definitely say "I've a sister" wrong or not!!
_


----------



## shardaneng

Leo57 said:


> I hope we are not in trouble continuing with this, but below is a link for you.  By the way, sometimes _it is advisable_ to avoid using "got" as it can be _overdone_, but I cannot ever imagine saying or hearing:  I have you under my skin.   (I've got you under my skin.)
> havegot.htm
> Ciao
> Leo
> 
> 
> _p.s. People will definitely say "I've a sister" wrong or not!!
> _



Scusate ragazzi, ma continuo ad essere confuso. Nel link che mi ha fornito Leo57 c'è quest'esempio:

There is no contracted form for 'Have' in the positive form. The contracted form is used for 'have got'
Example: I have a red bicycle. OR I've got a red bicycle. NOT I've a red bicycle.


Se questa regola è valida per la bicicletta, suppongo sia valida anche per i dubbi, o le sorelle. Dunque, Einstein mi dice che non è sbagliato, è solo poco usato. Questo link e il mio libro di grammatica dicono che non è corretto. 
Ora, io sono consapevole che nel linguaggio parlato, così in inglese come in italiano, non si rispettano parecchie regole grammaticali, però (essendo io un quasi laureato in lingue) so che per certi professori (madrelingua) certi errori sono da evitare. Per esempio, in un esame scritto ci sono esercizi dove devi scegliere la forma corretta. Se io scelgo "I've two brothers" invece che "I have/ I've got two brothers" questo potrebbe venire valutato come un errore. Dunque, io sono consapevole che nessuno mi spara se uso questa forma, ma il punto è: è grammaticalmente corretto oppure no?
Se io, futuro insegnante di inglese, dovessi fare una lezione su questo verbo, dovrei dire che è grammaticalmente corretto o che si può usare tranquillamente nel linguaggio parlato senza che nessuno faccia obiezioni?

p.s. Einstein you have helped me many times that's why I almost trust you more than my grammar book. So please don't take offence if I'm too picky.


----------



## Einstein

Se fai una lezione sul verbo _have_ è meglio insegnare che la contrazione si accompagna con _got_. Ai principianti devi insegnare le forme più correnti. E, dopotutto, cos'è una regola se non una descrizione di come generalmente si usa la lingua?

Il mio punto è che le "regole" vere e proprie riguardano l'uso dei tempi, la costruzione della frase ecc. Sull'uso preciso di una contrazione nell'inglese parlato possiamo essere un po' meno fiscali e concordo con quello che dice *Leo57*.


----------



## shardaneng

Ok thank you .


----------



## Leo57

shardaneng said:


> Scusate ragazzi, ma continuo ad essere confuso. Nel link che mi ha fornito Leo57 c'è quest'esempio:
> 
> There is no contracted form for 'Have' in the positive form. The contracted form is used for 'have got'
> Example: I have a red bicycle. OR I've got a red bicycle. NOT I've a red bicycle.



Hi there
I do realise that Einstein has put your mind at rest but I just wanted to apologise for not being clear enough.  I sent the link to confirm that your grammar book was indeed correct!  However, it does happen that these "rules" are forgotten in colloquial language (if they were ever known in the first place, that is.)  I am really not sure if I _would say_ or _do say_: I've a ... instead of "I've got a..."  but I will pay attention and see if I do.  (My language can be just as sloppy as the next person's when I'm rabbiting on to my friends.)

Ciao
Leo


----------



## shardaneng

Leo57 said:


> Hi there
> I do realise that Einstein has put your mind at rest but I just wanted to apologise for not being clear enough.  I sent the link to confirm that your grammar book was indeed correct!  However, it does happen that these "rules" are forgotten in colloquial language (if they were ever known in the first place, that is.)  I am really not sure if I _would say_ or _do say_: I've a ... instead of "I've got a..."  but I will pay attention and see if I do.  (My language can be just as sloppy as the next person's when I'm rabbiting on to my friends.)
> 
> Ciao
> Leo



Unfortunately I had just burnt my book before you gave me that link 
By the way, I know that nobody speaks like the queen, probably not even the queen herself, I mean, following all the rules. But that is what is requested in exams and, since sometimes I help some friends of mine with English, I want to be sure I'm not telling them something wrong and I want to be precise about what is grammatically correct and what is only accepted in everyday conversation.
That's why I'm the biggest fan of this site, to improve beyond the university's teaching. (I'm not sure about the last sentence, but I liked the way it sounds.)


----------



## rrose17

My two cents. And I'm not a grammarian, by any means...
Even if we do often hear "I've doubts about the whole thing." I don't think it's correct. All you have to do is try and say it in the third person "He's doubts about the whole thing." and you can see it's not right.


----------



## Einstein

Certainly *He's* without *got* means *He is*, but in the other persons there's no ambiguity. I don't particularly want to promote using *I've* without *got*, I'm just saying that it can happen when speaking quickly and that people who have learnt the rules shouldn't be shocked; I don't see it as a big mistake, as *them was* would be.


----------

