Use of Have/Has Got in Jim's books

[XavierDLH]

I quickly became a fan of Jim Butcher's works earlier this year, when I started reading The Dresden Files.  I've since moved on to The Codex Alera.  (Slightly off-topic, but this is my ice-breaker.)  I miss Harry, of course, but The Codex Alera is shaping up to be the best fantasy series I've ever read.


All throughout Jim's books, I've noticed that he favors the slightly archaic "have got" and "has got."  I'm not sure how popular those parts of speech are in other areas of the United States, but I've always thought that they were mostly a British thing. So I've been wondering for a while now, does Jim actually talk like that?  It's too difficult for my poor Pittsburghian ears to fathom, really.

But, seriously, I would kind of like to know why Jim favors those particular parts of speech.


And in case someone reads this with a blank stare, allow me to briefly explain:

Say you recently purchased a new pair of shoes.

Now, using the Have Got approach:
"I have got a pair of shoes." -- Do you have a pair of shoes, or did you get a pair of shoes?
It's hard to tell from that sentence.

But by breaking Have and Got, you gain a good bit of clarity:
"I have a pair of shoes." -- You literally have the shoes in your possession.
"I got a pair a shoes." -- You just received a pair of shoes, but do not necessarily have them with you.


There are quite probably far better examples than that. But that's all I could come up with early this morning -- and before my coffee, to boot!

[neminem]

Now, using the Have Got approach:
"I have got a pair of shoes." -- Do you have a pair of shoes, or did you get a pair of shoes?
It's hard to tell from that sentence.

Actually, I'd say if you recently received the pair of shoes, you'd have gotten it .

I have got a pair of shoes seems pretty clear to me. Slightly archaic, maybe, but still entirely within the realm of nonawkwardness. Anyway, it mostly sounds archaic to me only because nobody around here speaks without contractions: the sentence, "I've got a pair of shoes", means the same thing, and is something I would say without a moment's thought.
<-- amateur linguist

[XavierDLH]

Thanks for replying!

Actually, I'd say if you recently received the pair of shoes, you'd have gotten it .

Gotten exists strictly in American English, though. All other English speakers would simply use got.


Besides it being regionally archaic for me, I find it to be misleading, if not out-right wrong.
To have means to physically possess something -- typically.
And got means you just recently received something. The past-tense of get.

How can you claim such zealous ownership of something you just received?
It seems awfully arrogant, to say the least.

[neminem]

Thanks for replying!

Actually, I'd say if you recently received the pair of shoes, you'd have gotten it .

Gotten exists strictly in American English, though. All other English speakers would simply use got.

True. We are talking about American English, though, not any other dialects. My point stands. And "have", when used in conjunction with "got", doesn't mean much of anything, by itself. It looks more like a phrasal verb, to me, the same way the "throw" in "throw up" is meaningless by itself.

[XavierDLH]

If it's meaningless, then why use it?

[neminem]

If it's meaningless, then why use it?

I had the flu, and it made me up last night.
I had the flu, and it made me throw last night.

Neither of those make any sense. Why do we have phrasal verbs? No idea, we just do. Now, why do we have a phrasal verb ("have got") that means the same thing as its first half ("have")? That is a good question. Not one I could answer, though.

[Todd Edwards]

Think of a phrasal verb like a vector. Velocity includes info on speed and direction.

Or maybe that doesn't help. Anyway, you can talk about speed without reference to direction. Same for throw. I can tell you I threw something and maybe the direction doesn't matter. Or maybe the direction is implied. "The pitcher threw the baseball and the batter swung the bat."

[Amber]

I have a pair of shoes implies that you have, now, in your possession a pair of shoes.  I got a pair of shoes is more along the lines of saying that you received a pair, and makes no implications to whether or not you currently have them.

I have gotten implies that, in the past, you've received shoes.  I have got or I've got seem to make the implication of of the "have" alone.  But I don't think that it's proper American English in any way.  It's more of a manner of speaking than something you would write.

This is, of course, assuming that I remember my grammar team practices properly.

And, yes.  My high school had a competitive grammar team.

Yes.

I'm that big of a geek.

Ask me about Physics team.

C'mon.  You know you want to

[Mickey Finn]

Now, why do we have a phrasal verb ("have got") that means the same thing as its first half ("have")? That is a good question. Not one I could answer, though.

Evolution of language....language is a living thing. It is, essentially, the same as a conjunction.

[FredG]

"I got shoes!" implies, to me, the getting is in the past.  Present ownership is not stated.
"I have shoes!" implies, to me, the ownership is in the present.
"I have got shoes!" implies, to me, the getting is in the past, and the present ownership is asserted

And it could be just a Spoken Accent issue, too.

"Do you have anything to deal with this, Harry?"
"I HAVE got my blasting rod with me!" 

As a phrase equivalent to :
"I DO have my blasting rod with me!"
(emphasis mine)

I don't know if that's a regionalism or not.  I'm a Cleveland, Ohio, speaker originally, and I know you Pittsburgh people talk funny

-FredG

[BelleMorte]

.... and then they say that French is hard!!!!!..

[Mickey Finn]

Bah...French is a romance language. It has rules it tends to stick by.

English is one of the hardest languages out there. Great Old Ones, with their bileous, gibbonous elder languages, would look at english and say, "Damn. That's enough to drive you mad."*




*Well,  they'd say S'lathgelyic dormanst'vic shlaterfeld, but you get the point.

[BelleMorte]

I agree French is the "romantique" language, because of the soft sound of prononciation and they say the English is the "business" language because it goes directly to the point, nothing fancy.... Hummm since I know both ...does that mean I can romantically talk business with you?? 

[Mickey Finn]

Mayyyyyyybe.

[Kalium]

*Well,  they'd say S'lathgelyic dormanst'vic shlaterfeld, but you get the point.

No they wouldn't. There are entirely too many vowels in that.