# She hasn't any boyfriend



## Zulema

Hi!
I'm pretty confuse  cause in the school the teacher told me that when the verb have in the third person is being used in a negative sentence I can't use hasn't; instead of I should use the auxiliar does (doesn't). And she gove those examples:
She hasn't any boy friend 
She doesn't have any boyfriend 
Why the first one it's incorrect?
Somebody help me please!


----------



## gotitadeleche

It is typical in English that when we express something in the negative or ask a question, we use the auxiliar.

He runs.
He doesn't run. (NOT He not runs)
Does he run? (NOT He runs?)

She has a boyfriend.
She doesn't have any boyfriend.
Does she have a boyfriend?


----------



## gotitadeleche

Thinking about it some more, you can say "She hasn't got a boyfriend." In that case "hasn't" is the auxiliary.


----------



## DearPrudence

But could we say: '*she hasn't GOT any boyfriend*'?


----------



## natasha2000

Zulema said:
			
		

> Hi!
> I'm pretty confuseD  cause in the school the teacher told me that when the verb have in the third person is being used in a negative sentence I can't use hasn't; instead of I should use the auxiliar does (doesn't). And she gove those examples:
> She hasn't any boy friend
> She doesn't have any boyfriend
> Why the first one it's incorrect?
> Somebody help me please!


 
Imagina que el verbo have fuera otro verbo. Por ejemplo, play.

She plays football. = She has a boyfriend. 

Ahora, vamos a ponerlo en la frase negativa.

He doesn't play football. = She doesn't have a boyfriend. 

Según tu regla, debería ser:

She playsn't football. = She hasn't a boyfriend.  

No te suena un poco raro? Es porque no es correcto. El verbo have tiene el mismo trato como todos los demás verbos en el present simple, y eso es que la frase negativa e interrogativa la forman con la ayuda del veerbo auxiliar do (not).

Por otro lado, hay un caso cuando si que puedes usar hasn't.... Pero te falta algo. Es GOT.

She hasn't got any boyfriend.

Espero que te ayude.


----------



## gotitadeleche

DearPrudence said:
			
		

> But could we say: '*she hasn't GOT any boyfriend*'?



Yes, when "have" is used as the auxiliary.

She hasn't seen it.
He hasn't been there. 
She hasn't ever done it before.


----------



## natasha2000

gotitadeleche said:
			
		

> It is typical in English that when we express something in the negative or ask a question, we use the auxiliar.
> 
> He runs.
> He doesn't run. (NOT He not runs)
> Does he run? (NOT He runs?)
> 
> She has a boyfriend.
> She doesn't have any boyfriend.
> Does she have a boyfriend?


 
Ay Gotita, eres más rápido...


----------



## Zulema

Thank's girls you really help me!


----------



## estudioso

no siempre....

"I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean."  "I haven't a clue what he's talking about."  Estos se dicen.

Creo que en el pasado sí que se permitía el uso de haven't/hasn't en el papel no-auxiliar.  "I haven't any" - búscalo en google y lo encontrarás.  Pero puede que fuera una incorreción aun cuando se usaba, ¿qué sé yo?


----------



## tillymarigold

British people say "She hasn't any boyfriend/a boyfriend." Americans say "She doesn't have a boyfriend/hasn't got a boyfriend."

So you can use it, but if you're talking to Americans they'll look at you funny. It sounds pretentious.


----------



## natasha2000

> no siempre....
> 
> "I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean." "I haven't a clue what he's talking about." Estos se dicen.
> 
> Creo que en el pasado sí que se permitía el uso de haven't/hasn't en el papel no-auxiliar. "I haven't any" - búscalo en google y lo encontrarás. Pero puede que fuera una incorreción aun cuando se usaba, ¿qué sé yo?


 


> British people say "She hasn't any boyfriend/a boyfriend." Americans say "She doesn't have a boyfriend/hasn't got a boyfriend."
> 
> So you can use it, but if you're talking to Americans they'll look at you funny. It sounds pretentious.


 
I would dare to say that although this is used, it is not correct.

It is also used "she don't" in USA, but it is not correct.

Maybe it is a shortened form of She hasn't got, where somehow GOT was lost in speech...

I really cannot agree with this  because it would go against everything I was thought and I read during all those years of learning  and using English. If you could give some link to some page where it says this is correct, it would be appreciated very much...


----------



## Bilma

gotitadeleche said:
			
		

> Thinking about it some more, you can say "She hasn't got a boyfriend." In that case "hasn't" is the auxiliary.


 


I missunderstood sorry...


----------



## estudioso

La verdad es que a mi oído también suena un poco tosco "She hasn't got a boyfriend" .... Pero es verdad que es muy común en Estados Unidos.

Aunque desde luego los estadounidenses hablan muy pero muuuy mal el inglés.   Este paupérrimo intercambio en el senado estadounidense lo saco de la BBC:
_"There have been and probably will be Iranian port calls in a number of countries in the world," Ms Rice said. _
_
_
_Ms Boxer replied: "No, no, this isn't port calls, this is training of their military. Did you make this part of a deal, yes, or not, because the reason I'm asking is I think some of us would like to make it condition." _
_
_
_Ms Rice said there had been Iranian ship port calls in India. But she said: "The assertion we understand that they train Iranian sailors, is not right."_

:O

Éstas al menos tienen un nivel.... el presidente Bush, yo diría que tiene más bien un nivel intermedio-bajo de inglés.  ¿Te imaginas qué harían los españoles si ZP proclamase un día que, _"Lo más importante de nuestra sociedad es de que nuestros niños se educatizen."_?   ¡Habría disturbios! XO  Pero en EE.UU., vamos, eso va hasta para un mandatario.... xD


(estoy de coña, sin ánimo de ofender a nadie  )


----------



## roxcyn

Zulema said:
			
		

> Hi!
> I'm pretty confuse  cause in the school the teacher told me that when the verb have in the third person is being used in a negative sentence I can't use hasn't; instead of I should use the auxiliar does (doesn't). And she gove those examples:
> She hasn't any boy friend
> She doesn't have any boyfriend
> Why the first one it's incorrect?
> Somebody help me please!


Fijáte:

Ella no tiene ningún novio  , pero literalmente sería en inglés:
She hasn't any boyfriend. 

En inglés si no es un auxilar (could, would, should, ought, might, can, will, shall...etc), hay que usar esta mágnifica forma de "*do*" O "*have* *más past participle*" (haber más participio pasado).

Ella no ha tenido ningún novio.   (Se dice esta forma en inglés.  She hasn't got any boyfriend). 

She doesn't have any boyfriend.  = Ella no tiene ningún novio.  En este sentido, no es auxiliar en inglés (no hay "have" más participio pasado), así necesita una forma de *do*.  ¿Lo entiendes mejor?


----------



## elroy

"I haven't," "she hasn't," etc. are not incorrect.  This usage is found in British English (such as in "I haven't the foggiest idea") as well as in archaic English.  Pick up a Shakespearan play and you'll find an abundance of examples.

It's uncommon in the United States, but it's not incorrect.  It's just that it sounds archaic and - as someone else said - somewhat pretentious because to an American ear it sounds forced.

"He don't" is not the same.


----------



## natasha2000

elroy said:
			
		

> "I haven't," "she hasn't," etc. are not incorrect. This usage is found in British English (such as in "I haven't the foggiest idea") as well as in archaic English. Pick up a Shakespearan play and you'll find an abundance of examples.
> 
> It's uncommon in the United States, but it's not incorrect. It's just that it sounds archaic and - as someone else said - somewhat pretentious because to an American ear it sounds forced.
> 
> "He don't" is not the same.


 
I would really appreciate some link where I can read it.


----------



## 3pebbles

Zulema said:
			
		

> Hi!
> I'm pretty confuse  cause in the school the teacher told me that when the verb have in the third person is being used in a negative sentence I can't use hasn't; instead of I should use the auxiliar does (doesn't). And she gove those examples:
> She hasn't any boy friend
> She doesn't have any boyfriend
> Why the first one it's incorrect?
> Somebody help me please!



Hi there,
Err, actually neither of them are correct.  Any gives the idea of plural for countable nouns (like boyfriend).
She doesn't have any boyfriends. (at the moment)
She doesn't have a boyfriend. (at the moment)
She doesn't have boyfriends. (generally)

A question for the American English speakers, do you or can you use 'have got' in the past simple???  I know you can't in British English but I was wondering about AmEng.
thanks


----------



## Smac

Zulema said:
			
		

> Hi!
> I'm pretty confuse  cause in the school the teacher told me that when the verb have in the third person is being used in a negative sentence I can't use hasn't; instead of I should use the auxiliar does (doesn't). And she gove those examples:
> She hasn't any boy friend
> She doesn't have any boyfriend
> Why the first one it's incorrect?
> Somebody help me please!


 
As several people said, usage is different in the USA and the UK. I think that "she hasn't any boyfriend" or, especially, "she hasn't a boyfriend" would not be considered an error by most British people, especially in speech, but it may be a grammatical error.

"To have" can signify *tener* or *haber*. You probably should not (shouldn't  ) contract "has not" to "hasn't" if it signifies *tener*, so "hasn't" can be followed by a verb but not by a noun or noun phrase.

In the UK, we used to be taught that "got" should be avoided when possible, even if it is not a grammatical error. I think the reasons are (a) that it sounds ugly, and (b) it is vague and a more specific verb is preferable. "I got a book today" could be "I bought...", "I stole...", "I found...", "I was given..." etc.

Because of all that, I usually look for a different way to express the idea, such as, "she has no boyfriend".


Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (Page 136) says:Protests used to be common against the use of _do_ as an auxiliary to _have_. Perhaps these were due to resistance to Americanisms, for in the U.S. _Do you have a match? I don't have a match_ are idiomatic where our own idiom requires _Have you (got) a match? I haven't (got) a match._ 
​It goes on for half a page on the topic, but I will stop there...


----------



## natasha2000

Smac said:
			
		

> Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (Page 136) says:Protests used to be common against the use of _do_ as an auxiliary to _have_. Perhaps these were due to resistance to Americanisms, for in the U.S. _Do you have a match? I don't have a match_ are idiomatic where our own idiom requires _Have you (got) a match? I haven't (got) a match._
> 
> ​It goes on for half a page on the topic, but I will stop there...


 
As I can see from this, there are various opinions on the usage of HAVEN'T... But as you put got in brackets, I can deduce that for some reason, "got" is understood without saying. 

Now when you are saying, I vaguely remember that I did see this in some English grammar, a very long time ago, but as the grammar was VERY old, I discarted it, considering that it had been changed to what I was taught later... And that is that the verb have is treated as any other normal verb in simple tenses, i.e. their interrogative and negative forms are built with the help of auxiliary verb DO.

One observation more. Someone here compared (I really don't know who) "has got" with present perfect. I would just like to add that even though according to its structure it is a present perfect, its meaning is of a present simple tense, just as a simple "have".


----------



## Smac

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> As I can see from this, there are various opinions on the usage of HAVEN'T... But as you put got in brackets, I can deduce that for some reason, "got" is understood without saying.


 
The brackets (and the italics) are in the original text I quoted. I think what the writer meant is that "got" is optional in each of these sentences. To me too, they sound equally good and mean the same with and without "got".



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Someone here compared (I really don't know who) "has got" with present perfect. I would just like to add that even though according to its structure it is a present perfect, its meaning is of a present simple tense, just as a simple "have".


 
I think so, in a correct sentence like "he has got a match" = "he has a match". But there is a common usage that I *think* is incorrect, such as "he got tired" = "he became tired". I would not write it myself, though I might sometimes *say* it! However, I would never even *say* "he has got tired" or "he has gotten tired", though neither is completely unknown.


----------



## natasha2000

> The brackets (and the italics) are in the original text I quoted. I think what the writer meant is that "got" is optional in each of these sentences. To me too, they sound equally good and mean the same with and without "got".


 
Ok, Smac, I understand... you can use it, or not. Whichever you like... But to be honest, I wouldn't tell this to someone who has to get a good mark in school...  Because it is very likely that if they write this, the teacher would cross it as "not correct".... 




> I think so, in a correct sentence like "he has got a match" = "he has a match". But there is a common usage that I *think* is incorrect, such as "he got tired" = "he became tired". I would not write it myself, though I might sometimes *say* it! However, I would never even *say* "he has got tired" or "he has gotten tired", though neither is completely unknown.


 
Yes, I was referring to this.
But, why do you say that "got tired" is not correct? I think that the usage of GOT in this example doesn't have(haven't?) anything to do with the GOT in "I have got".... Do you mean you wouldn't use the verb GET at all, or just its past simple tense?

Furthermore, there are so many expressions using the verb GET, in the same line as GET(got) TIRED, like:
get married
get angry
get annoyed
get... whatever you want, this verb is owsome! Even though sometimes is difficult to explain its usage to someone who is starting to learn English ... 

And YES, I completely agree with you in relation to "I have got tired", I wouldn't use this either. It sounds so.... wierd...


----------



## natasha2000

Smac said:
			
		

> ............ "he has gotten tired"..............


 
I thought the verb GET is changed differently in BE and AE.

BE
get, got, got
AE
get, got, gotten

Is "gotten" used in BE, too?


----------



## Smac

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Ok, Smac, I understand... you can use it, or not. Whichever you like... But to be honest, I wouldn't tell this to someone who has to get a good mark in school...  Because it is very likely that if they write this, the teacher would cross it as "not correct"....


 
You could advise the student to buy a copy of Fowler to use in defence... (You might even get the student to do so...  ) It is a much-respected reference book.




			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> But, why do you say that "got tired" is not correct? I think that the usage of GOT in this example doesn't have(haven't?) [hasn't - "doesn't have" is fine too] anything to do with the GOT in "I have got".... Do you mean you wouldn't use the verb GET at all, or just its past simple tense?


 
I was not definite about it being incorrect but I was trained early in life to avoid "got" whenever possible... Sorry. All your examples are good.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Is "gotten" used in BE, too?


 
No, it is archaic and now almost unknown in British usage except as a rare Americanism and in the expression "ill-gotten gains".


----------



## natasha2000

Smac said:
			
		

> You could advise the student to buy a copy of Fowler to use in defence... (You might even get the student do do so...  ) It is a much-respected reference book.


 
hehehe... I might as well do that...  
I really don't doubt that Fowler book is a respected reference for English grammar...
But I do doubt there are too many high-school students who would actually bother to do that...


----------



## elroy

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would really appreciate some link where I can read it.


 
I'm sorry; I don't have a link.  I'll just repeat that "hasn't" is *not incorrect*, and I'm 100% sure of that.  In archaic and poetic English, negating the present tense by simply adding "not" is *very *common.  As I said, read Shakespeare - or any other classical writer, whether British or American - and you'll see numerous examples.

Today we say "It does not rain" but back then they said (or at least wrote) "it raineth not."

It's perfectly acceptable English; it's just one of those features (like the "-eth" in the above example) that have pretty much "died out."  To consider them _incorrect_, however, is erroneous; "out of date" (with a few exceptions, as I said, like "I haven't a clue" and such in British English) would be the accurate description. 

Don't get me wrong.  No one today would say "I haven't a boyfriend" - and I'd probably "correct" a non-native who said it - but strictly speaking it's not incorrect or ungrammatical.


----------



## over

Zulema said:
			
		

> She hasn't any boy friend
> She doesn't have any boyfriend


Those sentences sound bad to me with "any". I would use "a" in both cases. I agree with what Elroy has said in his post about "She hasn't a boyfriend"...not technically incorrect, but doesn't sound right... Although, as has been mentioned, in sentences like "She hasn't a clue", "He hasn't a penny to his name", etc, that construction sounds okay to BE speakers.


----------



## natasha2000

elroy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry; I don't have a link. I'll just repeat that "hasn't" is *not incorrect*, and I'm 100% sure of that. In archaic and poetic English, negating the present tense by simply adding "not" is *very *common. As I said, read Shakespeare - or any other classical writer, whether British or American - and you'll see numerous examples.
> 
> Today we say "It does not rain" but back then they said (or at least wrote) "it raineth not."
> 
> It's perfectly acceptable English; it's just one of those features (like the "-eth" in the above example) that have pretty much "died out." To consider them _incorrect_, however, is erroneous; "out of date" (with a few exceptions, as I said, like "I haven't a clue" and such in British English) would be the accurate description.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. No one today would say "I haven't a boyfriend" - and I'd probably "correct" a non-native who said it - but strictly speaking it's not incorrect or ungrammatical.


 
It's ok... Smac and I already discussed the subject, and I accepted it's ok, I even remembered that I did see a grammar saying this...  
But as you said, it's rather old fashioned that is no longer in use, just es -eth,or thee, thou etc... I assume this is only BE thing, since American English does not use it...
Well, anyway, it was nice talking to all of you...


----------

