|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176 |
This has been a stone in my shoe for a long time now. So, if you will, please help me out here. I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts and/or authoritative input on the phrase: ‘I’ve got’, as in ‘I’ve got to go to work’, or ‘I’ve got a headache’, or ‘I’ve got to get a flu shot’.
Consider the following AH definitions:
have v. t. 1a. To be in possession of 14. To be obliged to; must:
got v. past tense and past participle of ‘get’
get v. t. 1a. To come into possession or use of; receive 2a. To go after and obtain 3a. To acquire as a result of action or effort
When the words are replaced with their definitions/meanings, ‘I’ve got to go’ becomes:
I have got to go.
I ‘am in possession of’ got to go.
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ to go. or
I ‘must’ ‘came into possession of’ to go.
Of the above, “I ‘must’ ‘came into possession of’ to go” is closest to the understood meaning of ‘I’ve got to go’, but is really nonsensical.
‘I’ve got a headache’ becomes:
I have got a headache.
I ‘am in possession of’ got a headache.
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ a headache. or
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘went after’ a headache. or
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘acquired as a result of an action’ a headache.
“I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ a headache” is closest to the understood meaning of ‘I’ve got a headache’, but is a tautology and best, and nonsensical at worst.
‘I’ve got to get a flu shot’ becomes:
I have got to get a flu shot.
I ‘am in possession of’ got to get a flu shot.
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ to get a flu shot.
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ ‘to come into possession of’ a flu shot. or
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ ‘to go after’ a flu shot. or
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ ‘to acquire as a result of an action’ a flu shot. or
I ‘must’ ‘came into possession of’ ‘to come into possession of’ a flu shot. or
I ‘must’ ‘came into possession of’ ‘to go after’ a flu shot. or
I ‘must’ ‘came into possession of’ ‘to acquire as a result of an action’ a flu shot.
Again, they’re all really nonsensical.
Wouldn’t it be clearer and more concise to say, ‘I must go’, or ‘I have a headache’, or ‘I must get a flu shot’?
I contend that the phrase ‘I’ve got’, in any form, is at its best, a tautology, and at its worst, technically unclear and grammatically incorrect.
Furthermore, consider that ‘I’ve got’ puts two transitive verbs next to each other with no action carrying over to a direct object.
‘I elect hit to go.’ Huh?
Maybe I’m just being thick here, but is this phrase grammatically correct? If ‘yes’, why?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
I've got to say I think it's just an idiom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
is this phrase grammatically correct?
You've got me, Dgeigh. :)
Seriously, others, who can provide "authoritative input", appear to agree with you. Here's a sample:
"Now consider the word got, which seems to be misused by many people. They say things like "I've got to go now!" and "I've got it right here." Why? Don't they realize that 'got' shouldn't be there? The infinitive (unconjugated verb) is to have. Spoken intelligently, these phrases would be "I have to go now!" and "I have it right here." There's something peculiar about this usage; if 'have', 'had', or 'has' precedes a verb, it's known as the past participle, and is said (e.g.) 'have gotten'. Even worse, sometimes have is just dropped: "I got it with me." In this usage, it seems as if the person considers got to be a synonym for have; it's actually the past tense of to get."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
I've got to admit, I always get a headache when grammatical terminology is bandied around as if it explains rather than merely describes a fact of our linguistic practice.
In most of the examples you offer I can see no possible confusion ~ eg, "i've got a headache" = "I have (possess) a headache"; "I've got to go" = "I must (am obliged) to go", and so on.
But doubtless I am being a mere clown and have misunderestimificated your confusionisation... :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
"I've got to get a flu shot."
I must acquire a flu shot.
Seems simple to understand. However, if I actually said, "I must acquire a flu shot," my language would sound stilted once I add "...acquire a flu shot." The verb 'to get' with all its various definitions indicates that context is all, and that someone fluent in English would superimpose context automatically over usage. What is very interesting about your question is how easily we do use the verb 'to get' with immediate understanding of context with no confusion about how the verb is being used. What a marvel is the human brain to be able to make these automatic applications of the verb 'to get' without filing through various definitions or understandings in our brains to know which definition is being used. Or, even worse, that we have no need to pull out a dictionary to figure out which definition for 'to get' applies to some sentence we're hearing. The verb 'to get' is used so commonly and so often that our experience with the language guides us in understanding meaning without ever having to pick up the dictionary, yet when we do so, as you have done, how very interesting to see that one simple word has so many different, specific applications--and how, in so many different instances, should we use a different word, the sentence ends up sounding stilted, as in "I must acquire a flu shot."
I think when Maverick wrote, "terminology...merely describes a fact of our linguistic practice," he hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
These periphrastic† (how's *that for a word) verbs don't always make a whole lot of sense but are often more widespread than one might think. For example the future in to go, as in, 'I'm going to explain in a footnote what I meant by periphrastic' is common enough in English and also in the Romance languages. The same is true of using have got or just have to indicate compulsion. Spanish uses tener in the same sense.
†Periphrasis is the use of a bunch of words rather than a single inflected word. Again in Spanish one could say voy a dejar, 'I'm going to quit' instead of dejaré (1st person singular future of dejar, to quit).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
J:
I've also wondered about these phrases, though never to the extent you have, and I have always felt there was something I'm missing. You are alos missing whatever that is.
But your post made me think some more about it, and I wonder if what we have here is a case of ellipsism.
Take, for example, the sentence, "I've got to get a haircut."
Is it posible that in its entirety the sentence reads something like this: "I've gotten the obligation to get a haircut"?
Similarly, you can make more sense out of "I've got a headache" by thinking of it as the more grammatically correct: "I've gotten a headache."
It's so nice to see a post qbout words!
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 67
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 67 |
preemptive plea - please forgive me if this sounds familiar - I only scanned the other replies, as too many 'got's gave me a headache (ironically enough)
Might it be something corrupted from "I've gotten a headache" meaning that I have acquired one? (You know, people probably just got tired of that last syllable and...OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!)
8-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
To make my point a bit clearer, can I offer a re-examination of your first example, Dgeigh? Consider the following AH definitions:
have v. t. 1a. To be in possession of 14. To be obliged to; must:
got v. past tense and past participle of ‘get’
get v. t. 1a. To come into possession or use of; receive 2a. To go after and obtain 3a. To acquire as a result of action or effort
When the words are replaced with their definitions/meanings, ‘I’ve got to go’ becomes:
I have got to go.
I ‘am in possession of’ got to go.----------- Is that really so awkward? I would render that (consistent with AHD meanings) as something like: I am possessed by an obligation + to go The alternate ‘meaning’ of ‘get’ is listed further down the whole slew of daftinitions: 16a. To have current possession of. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: We've got plenty of cash. b. Nonstandard To have current possession of. Used in the past tense form with the meaning of the present: They got a nice house in town. c. To have as an obligation. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: I have got to leave early. You've got to do the dishes. d. Nonstandard To have as an obligation. Used in the past tense with the meaning of the present: I got to git me a huntin' dog. The reason I put ‘meaning’ in inverted commas is to signify that I see this as only a post-facto rationalisation by the grammarians: the construction is offered by a speaker and received by a hearer, and the meaning is the meaning they invest it with – the dictionary makers come along way later and try to make pretty patterns with the ugly mess we undisciplined speakers take for granted! Perhaps it would help you lose the stone if you mentally glossed the construction as one word: haffgot :) Get and got are used with such widely varied meanings that, like Humpty, we should really pay them more! http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176 |
You have truncated my original examination of the phrase, maverick. I did not stop at: “I ‘am in possession of’ got to go.” That was merely the jumping-off point. I continued the expansion of the phrase to its possible conclusions, as follows:
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘came into possession of’ to go. or
I ‘must’ ‘came into possession of’ to go.
Nevertheless, your truncation aside, let’s examine the phrase at the point at which you chose to stop:
I ‘am in possession of’ got to go.
Using the definition you cited, the next possible expansions would be:
I ‘must’ ‘have an obligation’ to go. or
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘have an obligation’ to go.
The expansion: “I ‘am in possession of’ ‘have an obligation’ to go” is more faithful to the model I originally established of replacing words with their definitions.
Your conclusion of: “I am possessed by an obligation + to go” takes the expansion of : “I ‘am in possession of’ ‘have an obligation’ to go” and then tries to make it more understandable by changing the definitions of the words ‘have’ and ‘got’. You have changed the definition of ‘have’ from: ‘am in possession of’ to: ‘am possessed’. You have also changed the definition of ‘got’ from: ‘to have an obligation’ to: ‘an obligation’. Changing the definitions of the words was not part of my original model because it is pointless to do so and unnecessarily clouds the issue.
Looking at the two expansions above, the phrase either conveys a different meaning altogether from what is understood by ‘I’ve got to go’ or it requires further expansion.
“I ‘must’ ‘have an obligation’ to go.”
Here the meaning is different. It makes one wonder, “Why must you have an obligation? Is someone forcing you?”
“I ‘am in possession of’ ‘have an obligation’ to go” expands further into:
I ‘am in possession of’ ‘”am in possession of” an obligation’ to go.
Here the meaning is redundant. There is no need to repeat ‘am in possession of’.
You asked: “Is that really so awkward?”
Let’s compare your redefined expansion with the most clear and concise way to convey the meaning of ‘I’ve got to go’:
I am possessed by an obligation + to go
I must go.
I don’t know about ‘so awkward’, but yes, without a doubt, it is awkward – unnecessarily awkward.
You mentioned ‘meaning’. Yes, speakers and listeners can invest meaning in whatever they agree upon. But why make communication unnecessarily awkward? As I originally wrote, “Wouldn’t it be clearer and more concise to say, ‘I must go’ …?” The same meaning would be communicated without all the ambiguity.
Generally speaking, I think tswum has given the best explanation for something so ambiguous being used so widely and popularly: idiom.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
860
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
