# Now you (have) got me singing it



## Phoebe1200

Context: I'm singing a song that my friend doesn't like and finds annoying but in a minute she's singing it too and says:


Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it.​

Please tell me if this "got" is simply the past tense of "get" or the short version of "have got".
​


----------



## JulianStuart

Yes  Could be either.  Does the answer affect your understanding of the meaning?


----------



## Myridon

It could also be "have."


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> Does the answer affect your understanding of the meaning?


No.


JulianStuart said:


> Could be either.


Do you mean that both versions are acceptable?


----------



## JulianStuart

Probably in decreasing order of formality (but not meaning) You _____ me singing>
have
have got
've got 
got


----------



## Phoebe1200

I was thinking. And are you sure that it can also be the past tense of "get"?
I mean, is there a phrase "get someone doing something"?


----------



## Barque

Phoebe1200 said:


> I mean, is there a phrase "get someone doing something"?


Yes, that construction is used.

get someone doing something


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you!

But I'm still confused a bit. 

How do I know if "got" is the past tense of "get" or the short version of "have got"?


----------



## DonnyB

Phoebe1200 said:


> How do I know if "got" is the past tense of "get" or the short version of "have got"?


Well, "you got" is the simple past tense of "get".  The correct contracted form of the perfect tense "you have got" is "you've got".

Where the confusion has arisen here is over whether the person has deliberately used the simple past, which works in that sentence I believe in AmE but not in BrE, or whether it's a sloppy informal contraction of the perfect tense "have got".


----------



## JulianStuart

DonnyB said:


> Well, "you got" is the simple past tense of "get".  The correct contracted form of the perfect tense "you have got" is "you've got".
> 
> Where the confusion has arisen here is over whether the person has deliberately used the simple past, which works in that sentence I believe in AmE but not in BrE, or whether it's a sloppy informal contraction of the perfect tense "have got".


That's why the simple "got" is at the bottom of my list


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you!
> 
> But I'm still confused a bit.
> 
> How do I know if "got" is the past tense of "get" or the short version of "have got"?


Native speakers *don't* know, but we also don't care, because the meaning is the same in both cases. If you really want to know you have to ask your friend, but obviously we generally don't do this because we would quickly irritate the person.


----------



## Kirusha

Of course, that's nit-picking on a gargantuan scale, but don't you think there's a teeny-weeny difference in phrasing? When you say "Ok, you got me singing" and "Ok, you've got me singing" where "-ve" is inaudible, do you notice any difference in the way you say them?


----------



## JulianStuart

Kirusha said:


> Of course, that's nit-picking on a gargantuan scale, but don't you think there's a teeny-weeny difference in phrasing? When you say "Ok, you got me singing" and "Ok, you've got me singing" where "-ve" is inaudible, do you notice any difference in the way you say them?


Not really.  The sound of the 've may be obvious, faint or inaudible but outside that it would be hard to distinguish them.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I think that "got" in the OP can't be the past tense of "get" because she's singing it now and it would make it look as if I got her to sing a while ago. 
I think that "have got" fits better because I've got her into a state of singing now.

Does that make sense?


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> I think that "got" in the OP can't be the past tense of "get" because she's singing it now and it would make it look as if I got her to sing a while ago.
> I think that "have got" fits better because I've got her into a state of singing now.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Only if you ignore the word "now" in the OP


----------



## Loob

"Got" is inescapably the past tense or the past participle of "get".


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> Only if you ignore the word "now" in the OP


Sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Context: I'm singing a song that my friend doesn't like and finds annoying but in a minute she's singing it too and says:
> 
> Ahh, darn it, *now* you got _me_ singing it.
> 
> Please tell me if this "got" is simply the past tense of "get" or the short version of "have got".
> ​





Phoebe1200 said:


> I think that "got" in the OP can't be the past tense of "get" because she's singing it now and* it would make it look as if I got her to sing a while ago. *
> I think that "have got" fits better because I've got her into a state of singing now.
> 
> Does that make sense?





JulianStuart said:


> Only if you ignore the word "now" in the OP





Phoebe1200 said:


> Sorry, I don't understand.



Your explanation was "it would make it look as if I got her to sing a while ago. "  You can't put that after the word "NOW" in the original sentence

"Now it looks like you got me singing a while ago"

So that's why I said no to your explanation.  If you don't use the word "NOW" then it might make sense...


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> I think that "got" in the OP can't be the past tense of "get" because she's singing it now and it would make it look as if I got her to sing a while ago.
> I think that "have got" fits better because I've got her into a state of singing now.
> 
> Does that make sense?


This is simply another variant of your familiar question on whether to use the present perfect or the simple past. Once again, we native speakers do not consider that the present perfect is compulsory here, and *even if we did*, there are plenty of varieties of English where it's acceptable to replace the present perfect with the simple past. So saying that it "must" be a contraction of "have got" makes sense as a logical argument but is incorrect.


----------



## Myridon

Loob said:


> "Got" is inescapably the past tense or the past participle of "get".


How can "I got" be past tense when it means "I have"?


----------



## JulianStuart

In this case, one version is not that meaning.

I got you to post a new answer.
She finally got her friend singing.

get
*to (cause to) become, to do, to move, etc., as mentioned:* 
[~ + object]We couldn't get the car into the garage.
[~ + object + verb-ed/-en]We couldn't get the car started
.[~ + verb-ed/-en]He couldn't get started on his work.
[~ + object + verb-ing]*We finally got the car going.*
[~ + verb-ing]I find it hard to get going in the morning.
[~ + object + to + verb]We finally got the logs to burn.
[~ + object + adjective]That gets me pretty angry.
[no object]She'd like to get away for a while.
[~ + adjective]I get tired at night.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Myridon said:


> It could also be "have."





DonnyB said:


> Well, "you got" is the simple past tense of "get".  The correct contracted form of the perfect tense "you have got" is "you've got".
> 
> Where the confusion has arisen here is over whether the person has deliberately used the simple past, which works in that sentence I believe in AmE but not in BrE, or whether it's a sloppy informal contraction of the perfect tense "have got".





Myridon said:


> How can "I got" be past tense when it means "I have"?


I just realized something. When I asked in the OP 


Phoebe1200 said:


> Please tell me if this "got" is simply the past tense of "get" or the short version of "have got".


by "have got" I meant "*to have*" and not the present perfect tense. So now I don't know which one Glasguensis and Julian meant. Please clarify.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> I just realized something. When I asked in the OP
> 
> by "have got" I meant "*to have*" and not the present perfect tense. So now I don't know which one Glasguensis and Julian meant. Please clarify.


I think that no matter how you ask the question you will not get much difference in the responses you already have


----------



## Glasguensis

"I got" is not a short version of "I have". But my post #11 still applies. We cannot possibly tell what the speaker had in mind, but it doesn't matter because all the possibilities have the same meaning.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> "I got" is not a short version of "I have".


Are you saying that it's never a short version of "I have"?


----------



## Loob

How could it be?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oh, I meant when the "have got" is used in the sense of "to have" and not the present perfect, and it's shortened to just "got" in speech.

e.g. I got a sister.


----------



## Kirusha

I'm getting a weird deja lu experience.

I got:
1) the past simple of "get"
2) the lazy version of "have got" (where the have bit is reduced in speech so much as not to be there at all)
3) the substandard version of "have", primarily as far as I know in the Afro-American vernacular. 

2 and 3 are not to be conflated and I have a hunch (unverified) that 1 and 2 may differ in phonetic quality.


----------



## Loob

Are we back to post 8 and the answers people gave you to that, Phoebe?


Kirusha said:


> I'm getting a weird deja lu experience.
> ....


----------



## VicNicSor

> got
> *
> 2. * _Informal._ have got; have.


Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

Sometimes I come across this usage in American movies (at least I think I do, I mean, when it definitely doesn't look to me like the past tense of "get")


----------



## Phoebe1200

I've gotten really confused here but I only want to know if the OP's "got" can mean "to have".

Could you please tell me?


----------



## JulianStuart

For the last time  "I got" can mean "I have" informally - see post #5  That's why I said it was at the bottom of my list (least formal) in post #10.
I/I've got this Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary



> mainly US informal
> *used to tell someone that you can or will deal with something: *
> 
> It's OK, I got this. Go back to what you were doing.


In that idiom it means* I have *it (the situation/task/responsibility) under control.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Sorry, but in the OP, can it mean "to have"?


----------



## JulianStuart

Informally, yes.  The idiom was just an illustration.  I won;t say anything about "correctness", though.

(See also post #3 )


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> Informally, yes.  I won;t say anything about "correctness", though.


Do I understand it correctly that you don't think that "got" in the OP stands for "to have"? 

Please tell me.


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> Do I understand it correctly that you don't think that "got" in the OP stands for "to have"?
> 
> Please tell me.


Where do you see this interpretation???? There is absolutely nothing in any of JS's posts which suggests he thinks this.
Yes, "I got" can mean "I have", and it could have this meaning in the OP. 
I think that many of your problems stem from a misguided notion that there is only one correct answer - in English this is rarely true.


----------



## bruno_vegas1346

Get somesone doing s.t


----------



## Phoebe1200

Sorry, one last question.

Can the OP be: _Now you *have* me singing it._


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes, one could also say that.


----------



## sound shift

Phoebe1200 said:


> I think that "got" in the OP can't be the past tense of "get" because she's singing it now and it would make it look as if I got her to sing a while ago.


I agree. "Now" works with the past tense in some cases, such as a narrative (e.g. "Now he got up and stumbled towards the door") but "Now you got me singing it", where "got" is the past tense of "to get", doesn't work for me.


----------



## PaulQ

Phoebe1200 said:


> Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it.


In this sentence, the verb *to get* (get, got, have got/gotten) is used to form a verb expressing compulsion.

Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it. = Ahh, darn it, now you have forced/caused *me* to sing it./Ahh, darn it, now you made *me* sing it.

*To get* is a utility verb and, if you substitute another, more precise, verb, then *the nature of the verb that it replaces *will dictate the tense of that verb. Note the different tenses (have forced/caused and made) in the examples.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, everyone, for your kind answers!


PaulQ said:


> In this sentence, the verb *to get* (get, got, have got/gotten) is used to form a verb expressing compulsion.
> 
> Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it. = Ahh, darn it, now you have forced/caused *me* to sing it./Ahh, darn it, now you made *me* sing it.
> 
> *To get* is a utility verb and, if you substitute another, more precise, verb, then *the nature of the verb that it replaces *will dictate the tense of that verb. Note the different tenses (have forced/caused and made) in the examples.


Thank you for this, Paul.

But, just to clarify, you don't think that the OP can be _Now you *have* me singing it,_ right?


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you, everyone, for your kind answers!
> 
> Thank you for this, Paul.
> 
> But, just to clarify, you don't think that the OP can be _Now you *have* me singing it,_ right?


At least six posts have indicated that the OP could have used "have" in place of "got".  How many more do you need? 

Pauls's post discusses _only_ how "get" is used.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Sorry!
I just wanted to know his opinion.


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> In this sentence, the verb *to get* (get, got, have got/gotten) is used to form a verb expressing compulsion.
> 
> Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it. = Ahh, darn it, now you have forced/caused *me* to sing it./Ahh, darn it, now you made *me* sing it.
> 
> *To get* is a utility verb and, if you substitute another, more precise, verb, then *the nature of the verb that it replaces *will dictate the tense of that verb. Note the different tenses (have forced/caused and made) in the examples.


"get someone do something" mean persuade that person to do that thing, how can "get" be used in post #1, please?


----------



## PaulQ

taraa said:


> "get someone do something" mean persuade *cause* that person to do that thing, how can "get" be used in post #1, please?


 My post that you quoted explains it...

As does #21.


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> My post that you quoted explains it...
> 
> As does #21.


Do all "have", "make", "get" mean "caused"?


----------



## PaulQ

In that context, "Yes."


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> In that context, "Yes."


Thanks a lot 
Sorry just this question please, when "have" is causative, can we use "have got" instead?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes:
"I had the builders fix my roof."
"I got the builders to fix my roof."


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> Yes:
> "I had the builders fix my roof."
> "I got the builders to fix my roof."


Sorry I meant with "have got". Are these two the same?
"I have the builders fix my roof."="I have got the builders fix my roof."


----------



## PaulQ

taraa said:


> Sorry I meant with "have got".


What makes you think the tense would make a difference?


taraa said:


> Are these two the same?
> "I have the builders fix my roof."="I have got the builders fix my roof."


No, you have not read #50.


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> What makes you think the tense would make a difference?
> 
> No, you have not read #50.


No, I'm not talking about tense. I meant "have got" in "I have got a car=I have a car" not the present perfect


----------



## PaulQ

Your question has nothing to do with the OP. You should post a new question.


taraa said:


> "I have the builders fix my roof."="I have got the builders fix my roof."


These are causative constructions (and the second one is wrong.)


taraa said:


> "have got" in "I have got a car=I have a car"


These are indicative constructions.


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> Your question has nothing to do with the OP. You should post a new question.
> 
> These are causative constructions (and the second one is wrong.)


Aha, when I read this thread I didn't understand it's present perfect of "get".So the second should be: 
"I have got the builders to fix my roof."
Thank you very much!


----------



## PaulQ

"I'*ve got* you covered!' the boy said, pointing a toy gun at me." - This is from Whatever your device, we've got you covered.. You should quote your sources.

The sentence is faulty in its meaning and "to have someone/something covered" is an idiom.


The causative follows the pattern I <causative verb> object <infinitive>
The indicative follows the pattern I <verb> [object]
The passive follows the pattern I <passivizing verb> [past participle.]


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> "I'*ve got* you covered!' the boy said, pointing a toy gun at me." - This is from Whatever your device, we've got you covered.. You should quote your sources.
> 
> The sentence is faulty in its meaning and "to have someone/something covered" is an idiom.
> 
> 
> The causative follows the pattern I <causative verb> object <infinitive>
> The indicative follows the pattern I <verb> [object]
> The passive follows the pattern I <passivizing verb> [past participle.]


No, I saw that sentence somewhere else. They say it's a pattern but:
    Women used to understand this, but the feminists *have got them confused*.


----------



## PaulQ

taraa said:


> but the feminists *have got them confused*.


That is ambiguous, Have the feminists confused the women, or have the feminists confused the issues?


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> That is ambiguous, Have the feminists confused the women, or have the feminists confused the issues?


That is just a sentence without context.
Thank you very much


----------



## taraa

JulianStuart said:


> For the last time *"I got" can mean "I have" informally *- see post #5  That's why I said it was at the bottom of my list (least formal) in post #10.
> I/I've got this Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> 
> In that idiom it means* I have *it (the situation/task/responsibility) under control.


Do  you mean "I got" in #1 can mean "I have got" (The indicative constructions), please?


----------



## PaulQ

Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it, (colloquial/dialect) = Ahh, darn it, now you have *me* singing it, (more formal)

I get, I got, I have got.


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> Ahh, darn it, now you got *me* singing it, (colloquial/dialect) = Ahh, darn it, now you have *me* singing it, (more formal)
> 
> I get, I got, I have got.


Thank you so much 
But why does the quote below say "have and have got" are informal?Doesn't this quote anything to do with  indicative constructions "have got"?


> got
> 
> *2. *_Informal._ have got; have.


----------



## PaulQ

*To get* is a *pro*-verb. It has no real meaning *itself* but takes the place of other verbs - this is very similar (but not identical) to the way *pro*nouns work for nouns.

I got (bought/received) a car yesterday
I got (became) hot.
I got (obtained) the computer free from a friend
I will get (bring/fetch/make) you a cup of coffee.
I *got* (removed) it *out* of the hole.
I *got *(put/inserted successfully) it into the hole.
etc.

I *have* got (own) a car [that is] in the garage. = I *have* (own) a car [that is] in the garage.
I *have got/gotten* (become) hot. = I *have *become hot
I *have got/gotten *(obtained) the computer free from a friend = I *have *obtained the computer free from a friend
I *have got/gotten* (brought/fetched/made) you a cup of coffee. = I *have *brought/fetched/made you a cup of coffee.
I *have got/gotten* (removed) it *out* of the hole.
I *got/gotten *(put/inserted successfully) it into the hole.

But I *have (own)* a car is identical to I *have got (own)* a car ->* the tenses are both the present tense and "got" is meaningless. *_(It is possible to understand *I have got a car* as *I have already got/gotten (obtained) a car* but that is because of the time phrase "already".)_

Where *possession/ownership* is concerned, "*got*" is meaningless. In other cases, it has a meaning that can be decided from the context. In these latter cases, for the perfect tenses *AE uses "gotten"*1, but* BE uses "got"*.

1 I do not speak AE, so an AE speaker might correct this.


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> *To get* is a *pro*-verb. It has no real meaning *itself* but takes the place of other verbs - this is very similar (but not identical) to the way *pro*nouns work for nouns.
> 
> I got (bought/received) a car yesterday
> I got (became) hot.
> I got (obtained) the computer free from a friend
> I will get (bring/fetch/make) you a cup of coffee.
> I *got* (removed) it *out* of the hole.
> I *got *(put/inserted successfully) it into the hole.
> etc.
> 
> I *have* got (own) a car [that is] in the garage. = I *have* (own) a car [that is] in the garage.
> I *have got/gotten* (become) hot. = I *have *become hot
> I *have got/gotten *(obtained) the computer free from a friend = I *have *obtained the computer free from a friend
> I *have got/gotten* (brought/fetched/made) you a cup of coffee. = I *have *brought/fetched/made you a cup of coffee.
> I *have got/gotten* (removed) it *out* of the hole.
> I *got/gotten *(put/inserted successfully) it into the hole.
> 
> But I *have (own)* a car is identical to I *have got (own)* a car ->* the tenses are both the present tense and "got" is meaningless. *_(It is possible to understand *I have got a car* as *I have already got/gotten (obtained) a car* but that is because of the time phrase "already".)_
> 
> Where *possession/ownership* is concerned, "*got*" is meaningless. In other cases, it has a meaning that can be decided from the context. In these latter cases, for the perfect tenses *AE uses "gotten"*1, but* BE uses "got"*.
> 
> 1 I do not speak AE, so an AE speaker might correct this.


Thank you  so much for the good explanation!!
I read in threads that in "have got", "have" can be omitted without difference in meaning (*ellipsis*). In which one of these structures "have" can be dropped? Is it in the present perfect form or "have got" in "I have got (own) a car", please?


----------



## PaulQ

I have a car = I own a car (present)
I have got a car = I own a car (present)
I have got(BE)/gotten(AE) a car = I have obtained a car.
I got a car = I obtained a car (simple past)

Got = to own/possess
...........present.....simple past....present/past perfect
BE..........get................got.............have/had got
AE..........get................got.............have/had got

Got = other meanings
...........present.....simple past....present/past perfect
BE..........get................got.............have/had got
AE..........get................got.............have/had gotten


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> I have a car = I own a car (present)
> I have got a car = I own a car (present)
> I have got(BE)/gotten(AE) a car = I have obtained a car.
> I got a car = I obtained a car (simple past)
> 
> Got = to own/possess
> ...........present.....simple past....present/past perfect
> BE..........get................got.............have/had got
> AE..........get................got.............have/had got
> 
> Got = other meanings
> ...........present.....simple past....present/past perfect
> BE..........get................got.............have/had got
> AE..........get................got.............have/had gotten


Thank you so much, but I know these tenses  I just wanted to know when we can use ellipted form ? I mean when we can drop "have" in "have got"?


----------



## PaulQ

taraa said:


> I read in threads that in "have got", "have" can be omitted without difference in meaning (*ellipsis*).


I am sure those threads will tell you...


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> I am sure those threads will tell you...


But they don't answer this question.
Thank you again so much for all your excellent answers


----------



## PaulQ

Can you please link to the threads that say  "in "have got", "have" can be omitted without difference in meaning (*ellipsis*)."?


----------



## taraa

PaulQ said:


> Can you please link to the threads that say  "in "have got", "have" can be omitted without difference in meaning (*ellipsis*)."?


I got it/ I have got it [understand it]
have got
I gotta go or I've gotta go?
Difference between "got to", "get to", and "have got to"
have [auxiliary in 'have got'?]


----------



## Loob

None of those threads say that "have" can be omitted without a difference in meaning, taraa.

Perhaps you're thinking of this comment:


lucas-sp said:


> "I got to go now" is a slangy/dialect shortening of "I've got to go now." Both mean "I must go now," but only the version with the full "have got" is perfectly correct for your high-society cocktail parties.


----------



## taraa

Loob said:


> None of those threads say that "have" can be omitted without a difference in meaning, taraa.
> 
> Perhaps you're thinking of this comment:





Yes, I know it's colloquial.


entangledbank said:


> Actually, I think it is very common. My sister says 'got' where I say 'have got'. I used to tease her about it, then I learnt more about grammar. It is not _standard_ - it is not what you say when you are writing or speaking carefully. But in everyday usage, I think you will find it happens a lot.


----------

