majlo said:Frankly speaking I asked the question to make myself sure about something. See, I'm an English philology student and in a lecture I've been tought that 'have to' is used to refer to typical situations. For example, I have to wash the dishes. On the other hand, have got to is used for unusual, not typical situations. For example, I've got to wash the dishes because my wife went on a short business trip.
How would comment on this? Would you agree with the rhetoric of the lecturer? Really curious about that
Correct me if I'm wrong.angeluomo said:Just an AE clarification here. Elroy has provided some very good insight into the "have got" and "have" debate. However, I am convinced that Americans use "have got" just as frequently as their BE brethren.
Bingo.LV4-26 said:have got to is (perhaps) used in AE as much as in BE.
What I think is more specific to BE isn't so much the use of have got to than the use of "have got" to express posession.[/I]
Well I sure do, but don't be too hasty to emulate my style-- there's plenty of accomplished and linguistically expert people here who don't share my propensity for the basement-level vernacular, and might even see it as my "Achilles heel" and a real annoyance. One reason I don't "clean it up" is so that people will be reminded that my authoritative tone is also a quirk of style, and shouldn't be confused with Gospel on any subject, no matter how good it sounds sometimes.majlo said:Do you Guys often use I'm gonna do it instead of I'm going to do it?
Gonna, wanna, gotta, etc. are certainly common in everyday spoken AE. They are simply a very easy means of "abbreviating," and contracting common verbal expressions. They're not correct for written, formal AE.Do you Guys often use I'm gonna do it instead of I'm going to do it?
LV4-26 said:I've never used "gonna" or "gotta" (except when quoting dialog) in this forum even though I use lots of contractions. I have no reason to offer, though. I just feel it would look weird maybe. But I've noticed that some other non natives do use them (at least "gonna") sometimes.
elroy said:I agree that "have to" is more common in American English. "Have got to" wouldn't really be said in most situations, unless you want to emphasize the urgency/importance of doing something: "I have just got to see that new movie!"
I think it's just as common to say "I have to do something" as "I've got to do something." The danger of the second phrase is that, when spoken quickly, it ends up sounding like "I got to do something," which of course is grammatically incorrect. Worse yet, many native English speakers intentially say "I got to (or gotta) do something" which must be confusing to new learners and frustrating to purists.
Now that I've finished complaining, I gotta go.
(Just kidding ... I have to go)
I would understand I got to see him to mean I managed to see him. or I was given the opportunity to see him. .[...]"I got to see him on that day" here it would imply that "I had got to see him on that day". Am I all clear in my understanding? Correct me if I'm still wrong.
As moderator, Cagey referred the original poster of the thread "It's/ gotta...I've/I gotta" to this thread, saying, "People there agree that gotta should not be used in standard written English." Cagey subsequently closed that thread, so I'm adding my comments to this one.
I don't agree with the opinion expressed. Standard written English is the written English of people who speak a standard dialect of the language. It includes formal as well as informal registers of such a dialect, and gotta is indeed appropriate when a standard speaker is writing in an informal style.
In the US, you will find it used by a wide variety of writers. The other day I saw it used in an opinion piece in a local paper, and it seemed quite appropriate in context.
If we want forum members to avoid it when writing posts, but are still sufficiently informal that we allow contractions such as "couldn't" and "don't," that's our right. But the claim that it is never appropriate for use in standard written English is not accurate.
I agree; that is true in standard written English and most spoken English.I would understand I got to see him to mean I managed to see him. or I was given the opportunity to see him. .
But wait for native feedback.
I agree; that is true in standard written English and most spoken English.
In some colloquial speech, people say "I got to see him", as elliptical version of "I have got to see him", omitting "have". This is a spoken dialect, and context along with emphasis (I got to see him) will almost always make it clear what is meant.
I would understand I got to see him to mean I managed to see him. or I was given the opportunity to see him. .
But wait for native feedback.
"I have got.." is, admittedly, gradually being assimilated into the language; but "got" adds nothing to the meaning: "I have.. " is enough.
Have will do perfectly well in writing that avoids the natural rhythms of speech. But in speech, or prose that resembles speech, you will probably want have got.
Just a few descriptive remarks
[note1 : means used and means unused -- not right and wrong --
note2 : stressed (if only moderately) syllables are bolded, except when not relevant to the point ]
1. I have to go
2. I've got to go
3. I've to go
4. I have got to go (sounds silly without the contraction).
5. I really have to go
6. I have really got to go or 7. I really have got to go.
(almost?)All the speakers who use #2, also use #5.
Please tell me if you differ.
I'm not sure where that leads me or what point I'm trying to make but I'm convinced there's something there.
EDIT: on reflection, I think 6 is more likely as "I've really got to go".1. I have to go Agreed.
2. I've got to go Agreed.
3. I've to go OK in some varieties of English eg Scottish (?Irish?)
4. I have got to go (sounds silly without the contraction). OK if the have is stressed.
5. I really have to go Agreed.
6. I have really got to go or 7. I really have got to go. Both OK. In 6, really is stressed; in 7, both really and have are stressed.
There are parts of the world where "have got to" is good natural English.
I don't think panj was saying that at all, Imber. Instead, I believe he was suggesting that in some parts of the world (including his, as I understand it) "have got to" is not good natural EnglishBut are you saying the construction "have got to" would get past a (competent) copy editor for a major daily in the UK (other than for reporting direct speech, I mean)?