# I have (got) to ...



## majlo

I've always wondered. What is the difference between 'have to' & 'have got to'. And maybe there is no difference at all?


----------



## shamblesuk

It's personal choice, I feel. I usually say 'I've got to......' to keep it short.


----------



## James Brandon

There is no difference in meaning (I've got to finish this report = I have to finish this report). Grammatically, I suppose that, strictly speaking, "I have to do" is the standard and accepted form and there is no need for the "got". Besides, I believe the use of "got" with "have" is typically British English and not that common in American English (but Americans can comment on this). Ultimately, it is a question of register, whereby, in formal and written English, you would say "he has to attend the meeting", whereas in spoken and colloquial English, you might say "he's got to attend the meeting" ("he's got to" = "he has [got] to"). The same is found with "to have", as in: "She has a new car" = "She has got a new car" = "She's got a new car".
I hope this helps.


----------



## elroy

I agree that "have to" is more common in American English.  "Have got to" wouldn't really be said in most situations, unless you want to emphasize the urgency/importance of doing something: "I have just _*got*_ to see that new movie!"


----------



## majlo

Frankly speaking I asked the question to make myself sure about something. See, I'm an English philology student and in a lecture I've been tought that 'have to' is used to refer to typical situations. For example, I have to wash the dishes. On the other hand, have got to is used for unusual, not typical situations. For example, I've got to wash the dishes because my wife went on a short business trip. 
How would comment on this? Would you agree with the rhetoric of the lecturer? Really curious about that


----------



## elroy

majlo said:
			
		

> Frankly speaking I asked the question to make myself sure about something. See, I'm an English philology student and in a lecture I've been tought that 'have to' is used to refer to typical situations. For example, I have to wash the dishes. On the other hand, have got to is used for unusual, not typical situations. For example, I've got to wash the dishes because my wife went on a short business trip.
> How would comment on this? Would you agree with the rhetoric of the lecturer? Really curious about that


 
If I understood you correctly, your teacher is saying that "have to" refers to _habitual_ situations while "have got to" refers to _isolated incidents_.  That is correct, except that "have to" can also refer to isolated incidents.  

*I have to wash the dishes.* (habitual or isolated incident)
*I have got to wash the dishes.* (isolated incident only)

Whether "have to" refers to a habitual routine or an isolated incident will depend on context.  If it were exclusively used to refer to habitual routines, American English could not get away with hardly ever using "have got to."


----------



## majlo

Yes, you did understand me correctly elroy  Thank you for your help 
God, I'm so happy I've found this forum. Bearing in mind that I'm an English language maniac, the forum is a great source of knowledge for me


----------



## James Brandon

I believe your lecturer is trying to invent rational distinctions of meaning where there are only irrational vagaries in usage... But that's what a lot of linguists are paid to do - order out of chaos.


----------



## panjandrum

As one on the outer edge of BE, I found myself wondering, long, long ago, what this have got stuff was all about. I was able to find no rationale for using got. So I stopped. In spoken English, I get more than enough emphasis on *have* in, "I *have* to go now" - I don't need to say "I've got to go now." In written English, I don't think I use it either.


----------



## James Brandon

Panj,
Then again, if you cut out all that is inessential in human forms of communication, we would all speak in Morse code.

PS Might be quicker and more accurate, in fact.


----------



## angeluomo

Just an AE clarification here.  Elroy has provided some very good insight into the "have got" and "have" debate.  However, I am convinced that Americans use "have got" just as frequently as their BE brethren.  I also don't buy into the statement from majlo's languague professor about habitual vs. isolated being the differentiator between the two usages.  No, it's only a question of preference.  

"I have to go to the dentist" is perhaps more formal and would be more commonly seen in written form.

"I've got to go to the dentist," would be spoken in manifold situations, but probably not written, unless it were dialogue in a narrative or a quick e-mail.  

The first has a more educated ring to it, the second a more colloquial ring to it.  Both are perfectly correct.


----------



## panjandrum

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Panj,
> Then again, if you cut out all that is inessential in human forms of communication, we would all speak in Morse code.
> 
> PS Might be quicker and more accurate, in fact.


 For more profound consideration of the implications of this proposal, see THIS THREAD


----------



## Yashi

in spoken english (not necesarily correct english), I usually say "I gotta work on my report now", "I gotta go now" etc.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

I side with James apt description of the usage for these two expressions.

As far as I know, I've got/gotta is quite informal and yes we do use it in AE. In fact, when teaching ESL, we do have quite an extensive chapter in using these idioms; correct to use in spoken language but defer to proper grammar usage when writing.


----------



## LV4-26

angeluomo said:
			
		

> Just an AE clarification here. Elroy has provided some very good insight into the "have got" and "have" debate. However, I am convinced that Americans use "have got" just as frequently as their BE brethren.


 Correct me if I'm wrong.
I also think _have got to_ is (perhaps) used in AE as much as in BE.
What I think is more specific to BE isn't so much the use of _have got _*to* than the use of "_have got_" to express posession. As in James Brandon's example
_She's got a new car.

_EDIT : Just to correct a grammatical mistake of mine. I suppose it should be _not so much......as_ (not _than_)


----------



## Yashi

gotta is used in spoken AE all the time but in written english "have to" has got to be more proper


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

So you even write tongue-in-cheek, huh Yashi?


----------



## Yashi

hahaha yeah it's ironic eh I say "have to" has got to be more proper. I realized that after I wrote it.  It seemed appropiate.


----------



## joanpeace

I think it's just as common to say "I have to do something" as "I've got to do something."  The danger of the second phrase is that, when spoken quickly, it ends up sounding like "I got to do something," which of course is grammatically incorrect.   Worse yet, many native English speakers _intentially_ say "I got to (or gotta) do something" which must be confusing to new learners and frustrating to purists.

Now that I've finished complaining, I gotta go.

(Just kidding ... I have to go)


----------



## foxfirebrand

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> _have got to_ is (perhaps) used in AE as much as in BE.
> What I think is more specific to BE isn't so much the use of _have got _*to* than the use of "_have got_" to express posession.[/I]


Bingo.

As I read through this thread I wondered if no one was going to see that AE uses "got" liberally in that one specific sense, namely "gotta."  I gotta go.  Excuse me, I _have_ gotta go.  Or _I've_ gotta go.

No really-- I do.

Oh another thing-- the theory about habitual action is okay, and it's an exception to the "gotta" rule-- I _hafta_ do things, meaning that's just the way it is.  I've gotta do something-- it means not only something specific, but something right soon.  So "I have to do the dishes (in general)" doesn't change to "I've got to do the dishes" just because my wife is away, even if I don't do them (in general) when she's here.  I still _have to_ do the dishes while my wife is away.  "I've got to do the dishes because my wife is away" strikes me as very odd-- I've got to do them quick before she gets back, that makes sense.  "I've got to do the dishes while my wife is away" means that when she's around she doesn't allow me to.  And that _definitely_ doesn't make sense.

So "habitual" is not the best concept, because it implies an unnecessary permanence-- for "I have to" to replace "I gotta," it simply has to be the state of affairs, the general condition, and that still applies if the condition is temporary.

Elroy makes a good point about the use of _got_ as emphatic in AE-- we even reverse verb/object order in this regard, also for emphasis, as in "this you've gotta see."
.


----------



## majlo

foxfirebrand, thx for detailed explanation  As a matter of fact, I never use 'have got to' because I always associate it with 'gotta'. The same thing with 'be going to'. Do you Guys often use _I'm gonna do it _instead of _I'm going to do it_?


----------



## foxfirebrand

majlo said:
			
		

> Do you Guys often use _I'm gonna do it _instead of _I'm going to do it_?


Well I sure do, but don't be too hasty to emulate my style-- there's plenty of accomplished and linguistically expert people here who don't share my propensity for the basement-level vernacular, and might even see it as my "Achilles heel" and a real annoyance.  One reason I don't "clean it up" is so that people will be reminded that my authoritative tone is also a quirk of style, and shouldn't be confused with Gospel on any subject, no matter how good it sounds sometimes.

These forums are an adjunct to the dictionary pages, and for that reason I try to function as a repository of idiom and native-speaker usage-- which is to say I offer all these mixed-blessing posts off the top of my head and don't look a whole lot up.  So wear your hardhats and look out below!
.


----------



## James Brandon

It seems to me that the use of "gotta" is perhaps more frequent in AE (eg "I gotta go"; "I gotta do it"). It must be a contraction of "got to" ("got to" = "gotto" = pron., "gotta"), as in "gonna" being a contraction of "going to". If "gotta" is frequently used in AE, it would indeed confirm that "have got to do" (and not only "have to do") is the underlying structure that is being referred to. It follows that "have got to do" is also used, and frequently so, in AE. This surprises me: I was convinced that Americans tended to stick to "have to do", even when speaking, while also using "gotta do" in spoken AE. Then again, there could be a confusion on my part with "have got" for possession, which is definitely used more often in spoken BE than in AE ("she has got a new car" = "she's got a new car" = "she has a new car"). 

We need to differentiate "have to" for obligation and "have" for possession, of course. There is clearly a consensus that "have to do" is more formal and more correct than "have got to do" (even if the latter is not wrong). Books on matters grammatical confirm this. 

I hope my email makes sense!


----------



## GenJen54

> Do you Guys often use _I'm gonna do it _instead of _I'm going to do it_?


Gonna, wanna, gotta, etc. are certainly common in everyday *spoken* AE.  They are simply a very easy means of "abbreviating," and contracting common verbal expressions.  They're not correct for _written, formal_ AE.


----------



## LV4-26

I've never used "gonna" or "gotta" (except when quoting dialog) in this forum even though I use lots of contractions. I have no reason to offer, though. I just feel it would look weird maybe. But I've noticed that some other non natives do use them (at least "gonna") sometimes.


----------



## majlo

Well, when I started my experience with English language I used to use those expressions. Now they stick in my throat.


----------



## Isotta

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I've never used "gonna" or "gotta" (except when quoting dialog) in this forum even though I use lots of contractions. I have no reason to offer, though. I just feel it would look weird maybe. But I've noticed that some other non natives do use them (at least "gonna") sometimes.



Yes, I've noticed this, too. I have friends who speak relatively elegant French, and then when they write in English they use "gonna" and "wanna." Baffling. 

I advocate learning the register you use in your native language. 

Z.


----------



## Stephanagreg

elroy said:
			
		

> I agree that "have to" is more common in American English. "Have got to" wouldn't really be said in most situations, unless you want to emphasize the urgency/importance of doing something: "I have just _*got*_ to see that new movie!"


 
Very interesting. I was not aware of that. Would you say it is about the only situation in which you would use it?


----------



## Jose Maria

Have to and have got to are semantically equivalents. Normally have got to is used in informal speech whereas have to is prefered to be used in formal speech. However, the most important point is that have to can be combined with modal constructions (may, will, can, could, might..), progressive constructions (present, past and future continuous) and with perfective constructions with the auxiliary have
Ej: I may have to buy some food
    They were having to run away because they were in danger
     I have had to wake up this morning earlier because you were making weird noises.

Unlike Have to, have got to can't be combined with any modal constructions, past or progressive or future or perfective constructions either.
The following examples must be considered unacceptable.
EJ: I may have got to but some food
     I was having got to go there

I would like to know why my previous message has been deleted, Why can't I use spanish in this thread?


----------



## panjandrum

Jose Maria,
You are very welcome to post in this forum, but please note the forum title - it is English Only.
Please also note WR Rule #44.
Panjandrum
(Moderator)


----------



## mplsray

As moderator, Cagey referred the original poster of the thread "It's/ gotta...I've/I gotta" to this thread, saying, "People there agree that _gotta_ should not be used in standard written English." Cagey subsequently closed that thread, so I'm adding my comments to this one.

I don't agree with the opinion expressed. Standard written English is the written English of people who speak a standard dialect of the language. It includes formal _as well as informal_ registers of such a dialect, and _gotta_ is indeed appropriate when a standard speaker is writing in an informal style.

In the US, you will find it used by a wide variety of writers. The other day I saw it used in an opinion piece in a local paper, and it seemed quite appropriate in context.

If we want forum members to avoid it when writing posts, but are still sufficiently informal that we allow contractions such as "couldn't" and "don't," that's our right. But the claim that it is never appropriate for use in standard written English is not accurate.


----------



## Saurabh

joanpeace said:


> I think it's just as common to say "I have to do something" as "I've got to do something." The danger of the second phrase is that, when spoken quickly, it ends up sounding like "I got to do something," which of course is grammatically incorrect. Worse yet, many native English speakers _intentially_ say "I got to (or gotta) do something" which must be confusing to new learners and frustrating to purists.
> 
> Now that I've finished complaining, I gotta go.
> 
> (Just kidding ... I have to go)


 
Thanks Joanpeace,

It is indeed a beautiful explanation you have brought in here. I've always wondered myself why do natives use "I got to/gotta" instead of "I've got to" when they are meant to say the later. Now, I feel I'm quite clear about it. It should always be" has/have got to" and not "got to/gotta". But yes, if I were telling some past incident and would use "I got to see him on that day" here it would imply that "I *had* got to see him on that day". Am I all clear in my understanding? Correct me if I'm still wrong.
Cheers!


----------



## LV4-26

Saurabh said:


> [...]"I got to see him on that day" here it would imply that "I *had* got to see him on that day". Am I all clear in my understanding? Correct me if I'm still wrong.


I would understand _I got to see him _to mean _I managed to see him_. or_ I was given the opportunity to see him._ .

But wait for native feedback.


----------



## Loob

mplsray said:


> As moderator, Cagey referred the original poster of the thread "It's/ gotta...I've/I gotta" to this thread, saying, "People there agree that _gotta_ should not be used in standard written English." Cagey subsequently closed that thread, so I'm adding my comments to this one.
> 
> I don't agree with the opinion expressed. Standard written English is the written English of people who speak a standard dialect of the language. It includes formal _as well as informal_ registers of such a dialect, and _gotta_ is indeed appropriate when a standard speaker is writing in an informal style.
> 
> In the US, you will find it used by a wide variety of writers. The other day I saw it used in an opinion piece in a local paper, and it seemed quite appropriate in context.
> 
> If we want forum members to avoid it when writing posts, but are still sufficiently informal that we allow contractions such as "couldn't" and "don't," that's our right. But the claim that it is never appropriate for use in standard written English is not accurate.


 
I don't see "gotta" as [written] standard English.

I do see it as "eye-dialect".

[Runs away very fast...]


----------



## Cagey

LV4-26 said:


> I would understand _I got to see him _to mean _I managed to see him_. or_ I was given the opportunity to see him._ .
> 
> But wait for native feedback.


I agree; that is true in standard written English and most spoken English. 

In some colloquial speech, people say "I got to see him", as elliptical version of "I have got to see him", omitting "have".    This is a spoken dialect, and context along with emphasis (I _got_ to see him) will almost always make it clear what is meant.


----------



## mplsray

Cagey said:


> I agree; that is true in standard written English and most spoken English.
> 
> In some colloquial speech, people say "I got to see him", as elliptical version of "I have got to see him", omitting "have".    This is a spoken dialect, and context along with emphasis (I _got_ to see him) will almost always make it clear what is meant.



This is an example of when _gotta_ comes in handy as a pronunciation spelling when representing speech. "I got to see him." pronounced as four separate words with a clear /t/ in _got_ means "I managed to see him." "I gotta see him." pronounced as four words with a flap instead of /t/ in the middle of _gotta_ means "I need to see him." or "I am obligated to see him." The spelling difference serves a similar function to the difference between "alright" meaning "okay" and "all right" meaning "all correct."


----------



## Saurabh

LV4-26 said:


> I would understand _I got to see him _to mean _I managed to see him_. or_ I was given the opportunity to see him._ .
> 
> But wait for native feedback.


 
Thanks, LV4-26.. You sound right in your explanation as  quoted above............Initially I also held the same view what you are holding but was bit puzzled about it as went through various threads for the same subject. However, now I can say I'm clear about it too.


----------



## Benton

"gotta, gonna, etc are all contractions to be avoided (even in spoken language). They sound acceptable because years of careless speech has made them too familiar; but foreign learners of English should be aware that they are a sign of poor mastery of the language. They appear to be entrenched in standard AE, however.

Use "got to" in appropriate circumstances but use another verb wherever you can to replace this hackneyed expression.
eg "I got to see the president" is better expressed as "I was able (or I managed) to see the president".

"have got to ..." is better expressed by "must..." ("I have to..." is acceptable).
eg "I have got to write this report" is better expressed by "I must (or have to) write this report"
or, to express inner compulsion: "I just have to write this report".

"I have got.." is, admittedly, gradually being assimilated into the language; but "got" adds nothing to the meaning: "I have.. " is enough.

Speakers should always seek clarity in speech because shorter expressions are more persuasive. Longer expressions can be elegant; but not when combined with "got".


----------



## mplsray

Benton said:


> "I have got.." is, admittedly, gradually being assimilated into the language; but "got" adds nothing to the meaning: "I have.. " is enough.



"Have got" really should not be thought of as "got" added to the verb "have" meaning "possess," which is what you imply above. Think about it: The verb "have" in "have got" is an auxiliary verb, while the verb "have" meaning "possess" does not have any auxiliary function. They are not the same sort of verb and are in no way substituting for each other.

Rather, "have got" and "have" in the meaning of "possess" are synonyms, similar to the terms "hoagie" and "submarine sandwich."

However, even synonyms have differences. The Webster Dictionary of English Usage by Merriam Webster, Inc., in its article "have got," has the following advice for the use of "have got" and "have": 



> _Have_ will do perfectly well in writing that avoids the natural rhythms of speech. But in speech, or prose that resembles speech, you will probably want _have got_.



Note that the point of view of that usage guide is that speech occurs in both standard and nonstandard varieties. If they considered "have got" to be nonstandard, this would be the place to mention it, but they don't, because it is indeed standard speech.

Note that a parallel argument applies to "have got to" and "have to" meaning "am obligated to," "must." "Have got to" is discussed in a subentry of the above-referenced article, and is also treated as standard.


----------



## Benton

Thank you, mplsray, for contributing to this debate in a calm and lucid manner. Criticism of "have got" often attracts a more vehement response.
You quote from Webster, an AE dictionary, which confirms my belief that the expression is entrenched and, indeed, recommended in AE. (I have never heard the expessions "hoagie" and "submarine sandwich", however).
Much ink is expended on a probably futile attempt to expunge "got" from "have got". Even in BE, the purists are fighting a losing battle on this.
Nonetheless, whilst appreciating the AE acceptance, I continue to challenge, on behalf of the BE purists, whatever justification is raised for using two words where one will suffice. "have got" adds no greater meaning to "have" and gains no elegance of expression in using a compound.


----------



## Nunty

Moderator note:

While this forum takes note of and tries to understand regional differences in English usage, we do not take sides and we do not prefer one over the others.

This thread is about "have got". Please limit discussion to the specific point at hand.

Thank you.

Nunty


----------



## LV4-26

Just a few descriptive remarks

[note1 :  means used and  means unused -- not right and wrong --
note2 : stressed (if only moderately)  syllables are bolded, except when not relevant to the point ]

1. I *have* to go 
2. I've *got* to go 
3. I've to go 
4. I have got to go  (sounds silly without the contraction).
5. I really *have* to go 
6. I have really got to go or 7. I really have got to go. 

(almost?)All the speakers who use #2, also use #5.

Please tell me if you differ.


I'm not sure where that leads me or what point I'm trying to make but I'm convinced there's something there.


----------



## mplsray

LV4-26 said:


> Just a few descriptive remarks
> 
> [note1 :  means used and  means unused -- not right and wrong --
> note2 : stressed (if only moderately) syllables are bolded, except when not relevant to the point ]
> 
> 1. I *have* to go
> 2. I've *got* to go
> 3. I've to go
> 4. I have got to go  (sounds silly without the contraction).
> 5. I really *have* to go
> 6. I have really got to go or 7. I really have got to go.
> 
> (almost?)All the speakers who use #2, also use #5.
> 
> Please tell me if you differ.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where that leads me or what point I'm trying to make but I'm convinced there's something there.


 
Google and Google Books turn up quite a few examples of "you have got to go" and "you have got to be kidding"/"you have got to be kiddin'" and "you have really got to be kidding"/"you really have got to be kidding". Some of the "you have got to go" may possibly be due to transcriptionists making a change in "you've got to go" (there are court cases and legislative discussions among the hits), but other examples of that string of words appear to be from serious edited writing. 

When the results turn up an emphasis on _got,_ as in "you have GOT to go" and "you have GOT to be kidding" and "you have really GOT to be kidding", I am convinced that this is something the writer would have said in speech (specifically, the sort of thing I spoke of in a previous thread where I said that "gotta" has a meaning distinguished from "got to").

No, scratch that last parenthetical comment. "have GOT to" and "gotta"/"'ve gotta"/"have gotta" have the same meaning, "must," but have different pronunciations.


----------



## Loob

{Re post 42} I differ_ a bit,_ J-M



> 1. I *have* to go  Agreed.
> 2. I've *got* to go  Agreed.
> 3. I've to go  OK in some varieties of English eg Scottish (?Irish?)
> 4. I have got to go  (sounds silly without the contraction). OK if the _have_ is stressed.
> 5. I really *have* to go  Agreed.
> 6. I have really got to go or 7. I really have got to go.  Both OK. In 6, _really_ is stressed; in 7, both _really_ and_ have _are stressed.


EDIT: on reflection, I think 6 is more likely as "I've really got to go".

This stuff is hard!


----------



## LV4-26

Thanks for your respective inputs, mplsray and Loob.

I think if you substitute _less frequent _for _unused_, I may be closer to the truth.

I also believe (none of you really commented on this) that a substantial number of speakers (including myself, but I'm not a native so I'm not sure it counts) who normally use "I've *got* to go", will prefer "I really *have* to go" to either 6 or 7. 

I don't know. I feel there's something in the 3 phonems in "_got_" (maybe the "percussive" consonants 'g' and 't' and probably more so when the 't' is glottalized) that makes it more sort of effective than "_have_", when emphasized. 
But the length of the sentence may also play a role.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

LV4-26 said:


> 3. I've to go



In Ireland you will often hear this construction in spoken language.


----------



## LV4-26

Thanks, Pedro. Yes, that confirms what Loob suggested in her post.
Well, it really seems that you people *do* differ.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Since this thread was closed, I'd like to respond to a post made there that concerns the topic of this thread.



panjandrum said:


> There are parts of the world where "have got to" is good natural English.
> [snip]



Yes, I agree that in most places it's perfectly natural _spoken_ English. But are you saying the construction "have got to" would get past a (competent) copy editor for a major daily in the UK (other than for reporting direct speech, I mean)?


----------



## sdgraham

If "I have got to ...." is considered acceptable, could somebody please say how they would phrase the past tense?

I had got to go to the dentist? 
I had gotten to go to the dentist?

Does this make sense to anyone?


----------



## Loob

Imber Ranae said:


> But are you saying the construction "have got to" would get past a (competent) copy editor for a major daily in the UK (other than for reporting direct speech, I mean)?


I don't think panj was saying that at all, Imber.  Instead, I believe he was suggesting that in some parts of the world (including his, as I understand it) "have got to" is _*not*_ good natural English


----------



## Imber Ranae

I've never heard it used in the past tense. (It would technically be pluperfect, I guess).


----------



## LV4-26

As far as I know, the past of "I've got to" is "I had to"


----------



## mplsray

LV4-26 said:


> As far as I know, the past of "I've got to" is "I had to"



Yes, that's it.

To be precise, "I had to" is a substitution for the missing past of "I've got to." 

While doing a search of Google books for "have got to" "defective verb" I found an interesting discussion of how to categorize verbs in page 100 of _Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy_ by Bas Aarts. In one table (Table 5.1 Quirk _et al._'s auxiliary verb--main verb gradient) "have got to" was listed in a group termed "modal idioms."


----------



## JulianStuart

Perhaps it's also a substitution for the missing past of must (I musted).  Was that also listed?


----------



## mplsray

JulianStuart said:


> Perhaps it's also a substitution for the missing past of must (I musted).  Was that also listed?



_Must_ is listed in the Quirk table among the group called "central modals." Further down the page, Geoffrey Pullum, who it seems does not care for attempts at auxiliary verb classification such as the Quirk table, is quoted as saying of _must_ that "intuitively there is no less verby verb in English," although the context makes clear that he thinks it is indeed a verb. Shortly after that, the book quotes him as follows:



> if it is a verb, it is a peculiarly irregular one, for it lacks the past tense altogether (*_he must/musted leave yesterday_). It is therefore an irregular, in fact a defective, verb.... The modals are those verbs which have blank spaces against the entries for infinitive, _-en_ form, and _-ing_ form in their lexically entered paradigm lists. (Pullum 1976: 20)



The asterisk is, of course, a convention to show that the word or expression following it is erroneous (in this case, ungrammatical).


----------



## LV4-26

mplsray said:


> In American English, at least, I see no way to avoid their being identified as idioms, since the past participle of "get" in AE is not "got" but "gotten."


I think it's the same in British English.

It is essential to separate form and meaning in this.
_I've got_ is an idiom all right.

In meaning _I've got_ (as in _I've got my key_s) is synonymous with _I have._
In form,  it is derived from _get_. But *only in form.*. In other words, it does not mean the same as the present perfect of _get._
It clearly has a present meaning -- I agree with the writer mplsray is quoting.
Just say...
_I've got my keys_ and
_I've lost my keys_
...and you'll see it cannot be the same tense.

On the other hand, the actual present perfect of _get_ does exist of course. ==>
_Now that I've got home, I can rest for a while
It seems we've got nowhere so far._


The two forms are perfect homonyms. And even though the above examples are unambiguous, it is not always the case.
That's why BE speakers don't use _have got_  -*present perfect of get* - as freely as AE speakers do_ have gotten_....I think.


----------



## Word Eater

That is a good thread but I find strange that no one mentioned negative sentences and questions. Which one is better to say: 

*Do I have to go?* vs *Have I got to go? *

*I don't have to go.* vs *I haven't got to go. *


----------



## PaulQ

There is no difference between negative and positive sentences. The "got" version tends to be (i) more frequent in spoken English, (ii) considered as somewhat informal, may be too informal (iii) got is a "utility verb" and has many meanings and functions that can confuse a student of English and/or cause a loss of marks in an examination.


----------



## RM1(SS)

I was taught in school (somewhere around third or fourth grade) that "have got" is incorrect and should never be used.  Correct wording would be "I have" (I possess) or "I have to" (I must).

Like many Americans, however, I do use it.   ("Got a screwdriver?" = "Do you have a screwdriver?" or "Gotta go!" = "I have to go!")

But I would not use it in either of Word Eater's sentences.


----------

