Carl:
> >Doesn't American English require "gotten" when it is a
> >genuine perfect? If so, then where Americans have "gotten",
> >I can't have DO in the tag, and where Americans have "got"
> >I can have DO in the tag.
>
> That sounds right. So the first set of 'have got's are more
> of a present imperfective? (Can't think of any other verb
> that makes sense for in an English, but it makes a certain
> kind of sense for 'get'.)
Yes.
> You've got it, don't/*haven't you?
Is "haven't" actually bad here? I suppose things get complicated
because some Americans say "Do you got", etc.!
> You've gotten it, *don't/haven't you?
> which matches up with observed American usage.
>
> On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how to account for:
> You have, *don't/haven't you?
this is auxiliary have (but excluding "have got", which is special)
> versus
> You have it, don't/*haven't you?
this is lexical verb "have".
> >Though now Dick has raised the example of ought/should
> >-- "We ought to go, shouldn't we?" whose occurrence is
> >doubtless helped by the rarity of "oughtn't".
>
> Hard to negate 'ought to' to cover the same ground as 'shouldn't';
> 'oughtn't' doesn't quite get there.
It does get there for me, but it's good to have it confirmed that
it doesn't get there for everyone!
--and
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|