# have got to: in the negative form



## rojel

Can anybody help me?

I Know that 'to have got to' express obligation, but I'm not sure about the negative form.
For instance:
Positive: 'I have got to get up early tomorrow morning'
Negative: 'I haven't got to get up early tomorrow morning'

Is the negative form ok or have I to choose only among the expressions 'don't have to' / don't need to / needn't?

If somebody knows the differences between American and British English about this subject, please, explain them to me!

Thanks in advance!


----------



## gengo

In the negative, you can't use "got."  Some natives do use it, but it is incorrect and sounds very uneducated (I don't got to...).

Positive: I have got to get up early tomorrow morning
Negative: I don't have to get up early tomorrow morning

Remember that the positive form above is just an emphatic version of the more regular "I have to get up."  The meanings are otherwise the same.  There is no such emphatic version for the negative form.


----------



## rojel

Thanks a lot, Gengo! You really helped me. I would like to know if it is the same in England.


----------



## Chris K

In the UK you may also be able to say _I haven't got to get up early..._ but in the US it's not used.


----------



## gengo

I believe that everything I said above is applicable in all forms of English.  In the UK, they do use "have got" more than in the US, but that doesn't affect the negative use.


----------



## rojel

Well, now I am in a mess. I wonder if Chris K say that just because he has heard people in England talking in that way or because he is sure about the grammar.


----------



## Chris K

rojel said:


> Well, now I am in a mess. I wonder if Chris K say that just because he has heard people in England talking in that way or because he is sure about the grammar.



If you google "I haven't got to get" (in quotes) you'll see that it's quite common, though I suspect it's far less so in the US. I don't think the English regard it as grammatically wrong. Even in the US I don't see it as being "wrong"; it's just not the expected way of putting it (for us).


----------



## gengo

Yes, Chris seems to be right here.  Just goes to show how little I know about British English (una lengua que jamás dominaré).

But if you say "I haven't got to get up early" in the US, you will sound funny.


----------



## Chris K

gengo said:


> Yes, Chris seems to be right here.  Just goes to show how little I know about British English (una lengua que jamás dominaré).
> 
> But if you say "I haven't got to get up early" in the US, you will sound funny.



Agreed.


----------



## rojel

I can´t help asking Gengo why he says that about British English. Is it so difficult for an American English speaking?

Please...., correct my mistakes!


----------



## gengo

rojel said:


> I can´t help asking Gengo why he says that about British English. Is it so difficult for an American to understand British English?
> 
> Please...., correct my mistakes!



Well, I usually understand it (although there are dialects that are nearly unintelligible to me), but although I have watched countless British movies, have and have had many British friends, and have traveled in England, I still am not sure what they do and do not say.  That is what I meant.

My ex-wife was raised in England, and she used to stump me often.

I:  Let's go to the beach today.
She:  OK, and let's take our Li-Los.
I:  Huh?

A Li-Lo is an air mattress (colchón de aire) in the US.


----------



## rojel

And...what is a Li-Los in England?


----------



## gengo

rojel said:


> And...what is a Li-Los in England?



I just told you:  an air mattress is called a Li-Lo in England.


----------



## Forero

_I haven't got to ..._ = No es que sí tengo que .... [más o menos]

"Haven't got to" is not unheard of, but it if of limited usefulness, like "don't indeed have to". I might use it to contradict someone saying telling me I've got to when I know I haven't.


----------



## rojel

Thanks Forero. But there is something that I don´t understand about the conversation between Gengo and his ex-wife. You said that a Li-Lo is an air matress in the US, not in the UK. (Si puedes explicarlo en español, quizás sea mejor.)


----------



## rm321

Gengo quiere decir que la palabra "Lilo" no se usa en los EEUU, no existe en el vocabulario estadounidense, pero sí se usa en Inglaterra para significar lo que ha dicho, un colchón de aire (que se suele usar en/ cerca del agua). Supongo que en los EEUU sólo se usa la frase "air mattress".


----------



## Forero

It is confusing, but Gengo is saying that:


 (What is called) a Li-Lo (in Britain) is (called) an air mattress (colchón de aire) in the US.
An air mattress (the American term) is (called) a Li-Lo in Britain.
"Have got" is more widely used in Britain than in America. Americans tend to  prefer plain "have" when it means the same. "Have got" is used in America too, but it tends to mean something like "have available"/"have secured"/"have at the ready"/etc.

Also, when some kind of "getting" is involved, Americans usually (but not necessarily) say "have gotten", not "have got".


----------



## Bevj

From a BrE point of view, I would _always_ say 'I haven't got to get up early tomorrow'.


----------



## weeshus

Bevj said:


> From a BrE point of view, I would _always_ say 'I haven't got to get up early tomorrow'.



Oxford :Library of Engliash usage says:
*Have to* (without *got*) and its negative *don't/doesn't have* *to* are the correct forms for habitual actions but can be used for single actions also and are common in American English

*Have (got) to *and* haven't (got to)* are for single actions only

In past tense *didn't have to *can be used for both habitual and single actions in the past, * hadn't got to *is used more for single actions - *didn't have to *the more generally used form.

*Have to *in the affirmative expresses obligation, in the negative expresses an absence of obligation

However - the differences between habitual and single seem to have blurred in normal usage and as Bevj says, *I haven't got to* get up early tomorrow (single action) seems nowadays to be perfectly acceptable and used in BrE & AE.

regards

Weeshus


----------



## sound shift

The original question is about the "negative" of an obligation. But what is that - a prohibition or a lack of obligation?

Prohibition
"I mustn't (must not)."

Lack of obligation
"I don't have to."
"I haven't got to."
"I needn't (need not)."


----------



## rojel

I really thanks everybody. I learnt a lot!


----------



## rojel

Sound Shift: I know that the negative of 'must' means a prohibition, while the negative of 'to have to' and the negative of 'need' means a lack of obligation. My doubts were about the correct usage and grammar of 'to have got to', and the differences in US and UK.


----------



## sound shift

rojel said:


> Sound Shift: I know that the negative of 'must' means a prohibition, while the negative of 'to have to' and the negative of 'need' means a lack of obligation. My doubts were about the correct usage and grammar of 'to have got to', and the differences in US and UK.


----------



## weeshus

sound shift said:


> The original question is about the "negative" of an obligation. But what is that - a prohibition or a lack of obligation?
> 
> Prohibition
> "I mustn't (must not)."
> 
> Lack of obligation
> "I don't have to."
> "I haven't got to."
> "I needn't (need not)."



As you say, a lack of obligation is not a prohibition. They are, I think totally different. Indeed a prohibition can be expressed in a positive statement *Entry is prohibited *or a negative statement *Entry is not allowed* or even a command *Do not enter* or statement *No Entry.

*regards
*
Weeshus

*Soundshift,I hope my previous post helped to answer your question on differences between US & UK?


----------



## sound shift

weeshus said:


> Soundshift,I hope my previous post helped to answer your question on differences between US & UK?


Weeshus, I think you are referring to someone else's question. I didn't ask about this.


----------



## weeshus

My mistake, it was a quote on your post, the question was from rojel - sorry.
Weeshus


----------



## gengo

weeshus said:


> However - the differences between habitual and single seem to have blurred in normal usage and as Bevj says, *I haven't got to* get up early tomorrow (single action) seems nowadays to be perfectly acceptable and used in BrE & AE.



That is incorrect.  In my five decades of life in the US (well, minus about seven years spent abroad), I have *never* heard an American use *I haven't got to *do anything, be it getting up or otherwise.  Of course, someone here may say that, proving the rule by exception, but I can confidently say that we do not, as a people, use that construction.

I haven't got to get up early:  No in AmEn
I don't have to get up early:  Yes in AmEn


----------



## weeshus

gengo said:


> That is incorrect.  In my five decades of life in the US (well, minus about seven years spent abroad), I have *never* heard an American use *I haven't got to *do anything, be it getting up or otherwise.  Of course, someone here may say that, proving the rule by exception, but I can confidently say that we do not, as a people, use that construction.
> 
> I haven't got to get up early:  No in AmEn
> I don't have to get up early:  Yes in AmEn



Gengo, I totally accept what you say insofar as it being incorrect to say *I haven't got to *do anything - I really don't know if it is used (albeit incorrectly) in AmEn and I readily accept it when you say that you (in the US) do not use that construction.

I am afraid that I have heard it used in BrEn - again incorrectly - and personally I dislike the apparent acceptance of incorrect usage.

As a general comment I am saddened both by the current "dumbing down" of BrEn and the increasing use of poor grammar in conversation and in some of our newspapers and news broadcasts.

Thanks for your correction

Regards

Weeshus


----------



## gengo

weeshus said:


> As a general comment I am saddened both by the current "dumbing down" of BrEn and the increasing use of poor grammar in conversation and in some of our newspapers and news broadcasts.



I'm afraid that trend is not limited to your part of the world.


----------

