# I gotta/I have gotta



## Pirulo1234

Hi,

I was listening a song when I heard the following two sentences:


_"I gotta say what's on my mind"

"I've gotta do what's best for me"
_

I think the second one is incorrect, due to "gotta" is a contraction of "have + got + to", so it already includes the verb "have". Somehow, I would like to make sure. Could any native answer me?

Thanks!


----------



## Agró

"Gotta" es la contracción de "got + to" (sin "have").
Las dos son "incorrectas", desde un punto de vista estrictamente gramatical; en todo caso, la primera es todavía más "incorrecta" (por la omisión de "have") que la segunda.

(entrecomillo "incorrecta" porque, pese a todo, se usa)


----------



## FromPA

"Gotta" isn't a contraction, it's a phonetic approximation of how "got to" sounds when spoken casually.   The first sentence is incorrect - it should be "I have got to say..."


----------



## Pirulo1234

FromPA said:


> "Gotta" isn't a contraction, it's a phonetic approximation of how "got to" sounds when spoken casually.   The first sentence is incorrect - it should be "I have got to say..."




So... is the second one correct?



Agró said:


> "Gotta" es la contracción de "got + to" (sin "have").
> Las dos son "incorrectas", desde un punto de vista estrictamente gramatical; en todo caso, la primera es todavía más "incorrecta" (por la omisión de "have") que la segunda.
> 
> (entrecomillo "incorrecta" porque, pese a todo, se usa)




Then, I can't understand why the second one is incorrect. Could you explain me it?


----------



## Agró

Pirulo1234 said:


> Then, I can't understand why the second one is incorrect. Could you explain *it to* me it?



Porque la forma "gotta" es _slang_.
Algo parecido, en cuanto a "incorrección", a usar "pa'" en vez de "para".


----------



## Pirulo1234

Agró said:


> Porque la forma "gotta" es _slang_.
> Algo parecido, en cuanto a "incorrección", a usar "pa'" en vez de "para".




De acuerdo, perfecto. Muchísimas gracias por tu respuesta y por la corrección de mi mensaje anterior. Me has ahorrado tener que abrir un hilo para preguntar acerca de cuán correcta era la pregunta que me has corregido, ya que me ha sonado rara en cuanto la he escrito.


----------



## FromPA

Pirulo1234 said:


> So... is the second one correct?



Yes, it is, although it would only be written that way in a dialog to express how the phrase was pronounced by the speaker.

_"I've gotta do what's best for me" = I have got to do what is best for me_


----------



## JennyTW

FromPA said:


> Yes, it is, although it would only be written that way in a dialog to express how the phrase was pronounced by the speaker.
> 
> _"I've gotta do what's best for me" = I have got to do what is best for me_


But what's your definition of correct here? "Gotta" is slang, so can it ever be "correct"?


----------



## juan2937

JennyTW said:


> But what's your definition of correct here? "Gotta" is slang, so can it ever be "correct"?



This is called in British 'received pronunciation'= RP.this has traditionally been used by majority of British upper and upper middle class people, it has changed over years and there is less prejudice in Britain than before against regional accents.

other 'rp' are :
haefta (inverted 'e') I do not have an English keyboard = I have to
I dunno= I don't know
I gotta go = I've got to go
I don't wanna play= I don't want to play
I ain't done nothing= I haven't done anything
I bain't ready= I'm not ready.
Gotta, gonna and wanna more common in AmE.
After King Alfred's victory over the vikings in 878 the English spoken in London and east middlands was gradually adopted  as the officially variety of English, later the norman French influenced deeply and became the standard language. If the vikings who held the north of England, had defeated Harold's army, the capital of modern English  might well be 'YORK'.


----------



## FromPA

JennyTW said:


> But what's your definition of correct here? "Gotta" is slang, so can it ever be "correct"?



I wouldn't characterize "Gotta" as slang.  It's a phonetic representation of how a phrase (got to) is pronounced.  It would never be correct to write "gotta" unless you are trying to imitate a manner of speaking.


----------



## JennyTW

FromPA said:


> I wouldn't characterize "Gotta" as slang.  It's a phonetic representation of how a phrase (got to) is pronounced.  It would never be correct to write "gotta" unless you are trying to imitate a manner of speaking.


Exactly, I'm referring to the written form of "gotta" as being incorrect. If we're talking purely about the spoken form, then there are lots of similar cases of things that in practice are pronounced differently to the written form (with ellipsis, elision, assimilation etc).


----------



## Pirulo1234

juan2937 said:


> This is called in British 'received pronunciation'= RP.this has traditionally been used by majority of British upper and upper middle class people, it has changed over years and there is less prejudice in Britain than before against regional accents.
> 
> other 'rp' are :
> haefta (inverted 'e') I do not have an English keyboard = I have to
> I dunno= I don't know
> *I gotta go = I've got to go*
> I don't wanna play= I don't want to play
> I ain't done nothing= I haven't done anything
> I bain't ready= I'm not ready.
> Gotta, gonna and wanna more common in AmE.
> After King Alfred's victory over the vikings in 878 the English spoken in London and east middlands was gradually adopted  as the officially variety of English, later the norman French influenced deeply and became the standard language. If the vikings who held the north of England, had defeated Harold's army, the capital of modern English  might well be 'YORK'.



I have gotta go = I have got to go, but not what appear in red, isn't it?


----------



## JennyTW

juan2937 said:


> This is called in British 'received pronunciation'= RP.this has traditionally been used by majority of British upper and upper middle class people, it has changed over years and there is less prejudice in Britain than before against regional accents.
> 
> other 'rp' are :
> haefta (inverted 'e') I do not have an English keyboard = I have to
> I dunno= I don't know
> I gotta go = I've got to go
> I don't wanna play= I don't want to play
> I ain't done nothing= I haven't done anything
> I bain't ready= I'm not ready.
> Gotta, gonna and wanna more common in AmE.
> After King Alfred's victory over the vikings in 878 the English spoken in London and east middlands was gradually adopted  as the officially variety of English, later the norman French influenced deeply and became the standard language. If the vikings who held the north of England, had defeated Harold's army, the capital of modern English  might well be 'YORK'.


I have never seen or heard anyone classing "gotta, dunno, ain't" etc as RP! As you yourself say, it's the English spoken by educated people of a certain social level in southern England.


----------



## juan2937

Pirulo1234 said:


> I have gotta go = I have got to go, but not what appear in red, isn't it?



Pirulo, according to Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, Number 308, number 4 ' Showing accent in Writing 
*I gotta go = I have got to go.*



JennyTW said:


> I have never seen or heard anyone classing "gotta, dunno, ain't" etc as RP! As you yourself say, it's the English spoken by educated people of a certain social level in southern England.



Jenny, *Interesting*, but Michael Swan, well known British Author' Practical English Usage' Page 289, number 384, numerals 3-4 states that.


----------



## Pirulo1234

Oh my god... so, how can I say "I have to buy something"?

A) I gotta buy something
B) I've gotta buy something

First, people say that B was more correct, and now juan says that A is the correct. I'm going mad!


----------



## JennyTW

Pirulo1234 said:


> Oh my god... so, how can I say "I have to buy something"?
> 
> A) I gotta buy something
> B) I've gotta buy something
> 
> First, people say that B was more correct, and now juan says that A is the correct. I'm going mad!



Pirulo, for a start, FromPA and I are native speakers. Juan isn't. (I've still got to check out what Michael Swan says about RP, though he may well be saying what I'm about to). 
Secondly, if you want to speak totally correctly, say;
"I have to go" (or "I've got to go").
Then, continuing in order of descending correctness comes;
"I've gotta go"
And finally, the least correct;
 "I gotta go"
But listen. If this is for speech and not writing, IT DOESN'T MATTER at all. As I said before, in speech we miss out or join lots of sounds/letters and nobody stops us to say "that isn't correct". It's just a feature of  natural speech and we (native speakers) are not even aware we doing it. I'm sure I say all the versions suggested. 
But if you aren't native and your level is not very high, it might sound stilted to use these alternatives, so you might want to stick to the correct form. And of course, in writing (except when you are trying to imitate dialogue) you should ALWAYS use the correct form.


----------



## Pirulo1234

JennyTW said:


> Pirulo, for a start, FromPA and I are native speakers. Juan isn't. (I've still got to check out what Michael Swan says about RP, though he may well be saying what I'm about to).
> Secondly, if you want to speak totally correctly, say;
> "I have to go" (or "I've got to go").
> Then, continuing in order of descending correctness comes;
> "I've gotta go"
> And finally, the least correct;
> "I gotta go"
> But listen. If this is for speech and not writing, IT DOESN'T MATTER at all. As I said before, in speech we miss out or join lots of sounds/letters and nobody stops us to say "that isn't correct". It's just a feature of  natural speech and we (native speakers) are not even aware we doing it. I'm sure I say all the versions suggested.
> But if you aren't native and your level is not very high, it might sound stilted to use these alternatives, so you might want to stick to the correct form. And of course, in writing (except when you are trying to imitate dialogue) you should ALWAYS use the correct form.




Okay, thanks JennyTw... only one more question. Does the same happen to some other expressions like "wanna" or "gonna"? That is to say, should I avoid them in writing?


----------



## JennyTW

Pirulo1234 said:


> Okay, thanks JennyTw... only one more question. Does the same happen to some other expressions like "wanna" or "gonna"? That is to say, should I avoid them in writing?


Yes, you should definitely avoid all those non-standard spellings in writing, unless, as I said before, you are imitating actual dialogue. For example;

The woman marched up to the man and said; "I ain't taking none of your shit. You wanna watch what you say or I'm gonna call the pigs!"

In songs they are acceptable too and in very informal writing, but not in normal formal writing (exams, reports, articles, business letters or emails etc etc).


----------



## Pirulo1234

JennyTW said:


> Yes, you should definitely avoid all those non-standard spellings in writing, unless, as I said before, you are imitating actual dialogue. For example;
> 
> The woman marched up to the man and said; "I ain't taking none of your shit. You wanna watch what you say or I'm gonna call the pigs!"
> 
> In songs they are acceptable too and in very informal writing, but not in normal formal writing (exams, reports, articles, business letters or emails etc etc).




Thanks!!


----------



## ranks39

juan2937 said:


> Strange enough!!, all my grammar books Azar's, Michael Swan, etc. deal with these substandard writings as something we should learn among friends or informal conversation. It seems that US English is substandard?



I think Jenny was only saying to avoid them in a formal setting.  You would not "wanna" use these words(gotta, wanna, gonna) in FORMAL situations like business e-mails, exams, formal letters.  They can, however, be used in informal conversation.


----------



## juan2937

JennyTW said:


> Yes, of course, Juan. I agree that you should be able to rely on respected books to clear up your doubts. The copy of the book I have says "First published 1980. Ninth impression 1984".  So it's probably older than yours. I can't find anything on RP in mine. What's the section heading?
> 
> What he DOES say in the Introduction under the heading Correctness is; "If we say that a form is "incorrect"... we may be talking about a form like "ain't", which is used by many British and American people, but which is considered "wrong" or substandard."
> He goes on to say that incorrect forms are marked by asterisks and are forms "that students are advised not to use."



Michael Swan, page 289 number 308, numeral 3-4 Dialect accent; 'received pronunciation' 3rd Edition. I wouldn't use hard words at the church or a formal dinner either. But we as learners need learn English as the grammar books deal with all substandards or polite words to enrich our vocabulary and reach the possibility to express your own language ( español in my case with the same nuances i use in my mother tongue to convey my feelings as accurate as a perfect correspondence of two nationalities but one idea.


----------



## PichaPuerto

It's like andaluz for example. If I start speaking "Qué pasa picha!, vamo´ pa el tinglao., has visto er cani, killo ke guasa etc etc,,
This is something that I could possibly say, but I couldn't write it down, unless I were imitating speech (Lorca for example)

"I ain't doing that, or I gotta go" just looks uneducated written down.

By the way RP is something very different to me, but I will check out the Swan book.


----------



## Agró

I can´t find anything about RP, either, in my edition of Swan's _Practical English Usage_, which dates back to the 80s.
Anyhow, I can't believe he used those forms to illustrate RP.


----------



## weeshus

_Agro is right when he says "I can´t find anything about RP, either, in my edition of Swan's Practical English Usage, which dates back to the 80s.
Anyhow, I can't believe he used those forms to illustrate RP." _
I have read through these 30 posts and I am afraid that I have to say "this is a forum on Grammar not street language, not disgusting destructions of my language but pointers and help on to how to construct and use the English Language in the correct way.
There are no shades of grey here - it is right or wrong - so inter alia - gotta, gonna, worrall, tharrel, innit, no wa imeen?, are totally incorrect.
Any question which asks whether "gotta have" is correct over "I've gotta have" should be answered (politely) with "neither are correct - both are gutter English (i.e. street language) used in conversation - never should they be used in written English *unless *to convey how an individual conversationally misused the language. 

For me (a somewhat aged believer in right is right and all else is wrong!!) regional accents *must not* be construed as being representative of correct grammar. There are so many issues in this area that the problems never get solved because the self styled "intelleigensia" believe that progress is destroying that which exists and struggling then to find a replacement to fill the void. As the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said in his book "The Art of War" - do not destroy before you have something to replace that which you have destroyed. 

*Michael Swan, in my opinion, should never be studied to aid the learning of the English Language* - when you are completely at ease and skilled with English construction and use - *you may** find Swan amusing.* *I never have* - he is merely distorting the language for his own self aggrandisement. Occasionally slightly amusing, but not often

regards - gorrago ( I have to go)
weeshus


----------



## cubaMania

I've been wondering why so many non-native English speakers in these forums seem to be fascinated by "gotta", "gonna", "wanna", etc. and so frequently toss them into their writing inappropriately.  Could this Michael Swan fellow be responsible for this plague?  If so, a pox on him!


----------



## JennyTW

If you want something parallel in Spanish, around here some people say "genario" instead of "geranio" and "el amoto" and "el aradio" instead of "la moto" and "la radio". Wrong or substandard, I'm sure you'd agree. So Juan, do you think we should encourage students of Spanish to use these forms, just because they're used by native speakers?


----------



## cubaMania

La comparación sería, creo, con lo que oigo en la habla oral y en muchas canciones, por ejemplo "palante" y "patras".
¿Debo escribirlo así en vez de "para adelante" y "para atras"?  Creo que no, salvo en las letras de canciones o cuando representando la pronunciación en diálogo entre comillas, o en texto por teléfono para minimizar el tecleo.
Imagino que pronunciación floja de varias palabras ocurre en todas lenguas, pero que normalmente no se escribe.


----------



## JennyTW

Yes, you should definitely avoid them in writing.


----------



## juan2937

JennyTW said:


> If you want something parallel in Spanish, around here some people say "genario" instead of "geranio" and "el amoto" and "el aradio" instead of "la moto" and "la radio". Wrong or substandard, I'm sure you'd agree. So Juan, do you think we should encourage students of Spanish to use these forms, just because they're used by native speakers?



My point is not beyond what's a proper behaviour at church or a formal dinner, but certainly within a teaching level to know many of these words , at least to understand the teens and adolescents their using a very difficult jargon in both languages, and it is good enough to listen at them so the generational gap shortens to advise my children properly. To understand an andaluz, gitano could be a very hard task to achieve. Michael Swan is a very well known author as well as AZAR's grammar books.


----------



## inib

juan2937 said:


> Jenny, *Interesting*, but Michael Swan, well known British Author' Practical English Usage' Page 289, number 384, numerals 3-4 states that.


I've been following this thread with interest and surprise. Juan, as no-one else seems to be able to find it, please could you quote exactly what Swan says about RP and "gotta" etc?


----------



## weeshus

juan2937 said:


> My point is not beyond what's a proper behaviour at church or a formal dinner, but certainly within a teaching level to know many of these words , at least to understand the teens and adolescents their using a very difficult jargon in both languages, and it is good enough to listen at them so the generational gap shortens to advise my children properly. To understand an andaluz, gitano could be a very hard task to achieve. Michael Swan is a very well known author as well as AZAR's grammar books.


Lots to say about this - but it will have to wait until the morning




juan2937 said:


> It is the first time I read ' *intelligentsia*' very latin origin word,


 Sorry for my typo - I spelled intelligentsia incorrectly in my post 

regards and good night to all,
weeshus


----------



## juan2937

inib said:


> I've been following this thread with interest and surprise. Juan, as no-one else seems to be able to find it, please could you quote exactly what Swan says about RP and "gotta" etc?



NUMBER 308 kinds of English, page 288-289 it has 7 paragraphs. 3rd Edition Practical English Edition.
Standard English and dialects.

*3* *pronunciation : dialect and accent : 'received pronunciation'  *
A dialect is not the same as a regional accent (though they often go together).
Many Britrish people speak standard English, but with the typical accent of their part of the country. Other British people, however, combine standard English with a non-regional standard pronunciation.This (the so-called 'received pronunciation' or 'RP') is the pronunciation that has traditionally been used by a majority of British upper-and upper-middle-class people, though it has changed a good deal over the years. For a long time  RP was considered more 'correct' than other accents, and its social dominancxe was reinforced  by education and the media. This attitude is now changing, and there is less social prejudice  in British than before against regional accents.

4 *Showing accent in writting *
Writers may spell words in special ways to show a non-standard or conversational *pronunciation*-for example , apostrophes may be used in place of letters that are *pronounced*. These spellings are common in cartoon strips, Some examples (*mostly *BrE) :

'e's gone 'ome. (= He's gone home)
'elp yerself.(=Help yourself)
Yer gettin' old.(=You're getting old)
If I get  me 'ands on yer... (=If I get my hands on you...)
where d'she put 'em? (= where did she put them?)
C'mom, we're late. (=Come on...)
C'n I 'ave a glass o' water? (= Can I have a glass of water?)
fish 'n' chips (= fish and chips.)
Come wi' me. (=Come with me.)
I dunno. (= I don't know.)
I gotta go.(= I've got to go.)
It's gonna rain.(= It's going to rain.)
I don't wanna play.(= I don`t want to play.)
Gotta, gonna and wanna are most common in AmE.

I had a very hard time copying those British substandard contractions , I still ignore how they are pronounced in British or American English.


----------



## inib

Thanks, Juan. I hope you won't get into trouble through my fault for quoting too many lines.
As you will now be able to see, your examples are of non-standard English, not RP!


----------



## JennyTW

juan2937 said:


> NUMBER 308 kinds of English, page 288-289 it has 7 paragraphs. 3rd Edition Practical English Edition.
> Standard English and dialects.
> 
> *3* *pronunciation : dialect and accent : 'received pronunciation'  *
> A dialect is not the same as a regional accent (though they often go together).
> Many Britrish people speak standard English, but with the typical accent of their part of the country. Other British people, however, combine standard English with a non-regional standard pronunciation.This (the so-called 'received pronunciation' or 'RP') is the pronunciation that has traditionally been used by a majority of British upper-and upper-middle-class people, though it has changed a good deal over the years. For a long time  RP was considered more 'correct' than other accents, and its social dominancxe was reinforced  by education and the media. This attitude is now changing, and there is less social prejudice  in British than before against regional accents.
> 
> 4 *Showing accent in writting *
> Writers may spell words in special ways to show a non-standard or conversational *pronunciation*-for example , apostrophes may be used in place of letters that are *pronounced*. These spellings are common in cartoon strips, Some examples (*mostly *BrE) :
> 
> 'e's gone 'ome. (= He's gone home)
> 'elp yerself.(=Help yourself)
> Yer gettin' old.(=You're getting old)
> If I get  me 'ands on yer... (=If I get my hands on you...)
> where d'she put 'em? (= where did she put them?)
> C'mom, we're late. (=Come on...)
> C'n I 'ave a glass o' water? (= Can I have a glass of water?)
> fish 'n' chips (= fish and chips.)
> Come wi' me. (=Come with me.)
> I dunno. (= I don't know.)
> I gotta go.(= I've got to go.)
> It's gonna rain.(= It's going to rain.)
> I don't wanna play.(= I don`t want to play.)
> Gotta, gonna and wanna are most common in AmE.
> 
> I had a very hard time copying those British substandard contractions , I still ignore how they are pronounced in British or American English.





 Publicado por JennyTW  
I have never seen or heard anyone classing "gotta, dunno, ain't" etc as RP! As you yourself say, it's the English spoken by educated people of a certain social level in southern England.
Jenny, Interesting, but Michael Swan, well known British Author' Practical English Usage' Page 289, number 384, numerals 3-4 states that.

Thank goodness! And to think people have been slagging Michael Swan off over this!
Finally it's clear that Michael Swan DIDN'T state this, right Juan?  
They are two separate prargraphs, with two different headings and have nothing to do with one another except that they are both in the chapter entitled "Standard English and dialects".


----------



## weeshus

JennyTW said:


> Publicado por JennyTW
> I have never seen or heard anyone classing "gotta, dunno, ain't" etc as RP! As you yourself say, it's the English spoken by educated people of a certain social level in _southern England._
> .



I don't think that is true JennyTW. It certainly is not only those who live in Southern England who speak standard English without a regional accent! Many people North of Watford speak correctly and try to maintain high standards of both written and spoken English.

Regards
weeshus


----------



## JennyTW

weeshus said:


> I don't think that is true JennyTW. It certainly is not only those who live in Southern England who speak standard English without a regional accent! Many people North of Watford speak correctly and try to maintain high standards of both written and spoken English.
> 
> Regards
> weeshus


No, of course it's not only people in the south who speak like that. I was paraphrasing (perhaps confusingly)but
 RP is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "the standard accent of English as spoken in the south of England",although it can be heard from native speakers throughout England and Wales.

In any case, RP is ONLY concerned with pronunciation and accent, not grammatical correctness (all this confusion has been created by Juan's misreading of Michael Swan), so it has nothing to do with people maintaining high standards in written or spoken English (you can have a regional accent but speak perfectly correct English).


----------



## cubaMania

Ah, I see.  Then the author Michael Swan is absolved of blame.  He has been misinterpreted by his reader.


----------



## JennyTW

Yes, that's right.


----------



## juan2937

JennyTW said:


> Publicado por JennyTW
> I have never seen or heard anyone classing "gotta, dunno, ain't" etc as RP! As you yourself say, it's the English spoken by educated people of a certain social level in southern England.
> Jenny, Interesting, but Michael Swan, well known British Author' Practical English Usage' Page 289, number 384, numerals 3-4 states that.
> Thank goodness! And to think people have been slagging Michael Swan off over this!
> Finally it's clear that Michael Swan DIDN'T state this, right Juan?
> They are two separate prargraphs, with two different headings and have nothing to do with one another except that they are both in the chapter entitled "Standard English and dialects".



<<Jenny, Interesting, but Michael Swan, well known British Author'  Practical English Usage' Page 289, number 384, numerals 3-4 states that.>>> 
if you read the numerals 3-4
these two numerals 3-4 are for you to read. These paragraphs are related and written down by Michael Swan are correct and are related to accents regional and pronunciation of the substandard contractions too I cannot believe those numerals were grouped without any link or just by chance. I hope those substandards contraction are utter by someone and they are used verbally using phonetics, this is my interpretation and I posted as it is in my book. Now if you think my interpretation is wrong welcome a clear explanation why is it wrong.


----------



## JennyTW

juan2937 said:


> <<Jenny, Interesting, but Michael Swan, well known British Author'  Practical English Usage' Page 289, number 384, numerals 3-4 states that.>>>
> if you read the numerals 3-4
> these two numerals 3-4 are for you to read. These paragraphs are related and written down by Michael Swan are correct and are related to accents regional and pronunciation of the substandard contractions too I cannot believe those numerals were grouped without any link or just by chance. I hope those substandards contraction are utter by someone and they are used verbally using phonetics, this is my interpretation and I posted as it is in my book. Now if you think my interpretation is wrong welcome a clear explanation why is it wrong.



Nowhere does Swan say that "gotta, wanna" etc are RP. End of story.


----------



## weeshus

JennyTW has it right. Swan does not equate RP with the "slang phrases" gotta, wanna etc. She observes that "RP is ONLY concerned with pronunciation and accent, not grammatical correctness". I would go further and say that the study of RP is concerned exclusively with pronunciation unlike the study of language which concerns itself with grammar, vocabulary and style. A scholarly artice by Professor John Wells Emeritus Professor of Phonetics UCL may be useful and can be found at the following link. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm his article was originally published in Medina & Soto (eds.), _II Jornadas de Estudios Ingleses_, Universidad de Jaén, Spain. (1997) p.19-28.

The examples used by Juan2937 that he has culled from Swan's book are not any part of RP. At this time they are the complete opposite. They are also not a dialect or regional accent they are simply slang (language use below the level of educated speech). 

Regards
weeshus


----------

