| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 945.1 | | PENUTS::NOBLE | Those guys! They're so 90s! | Fri Feb 07 1992 11:08 | 7 |
| "Gotten" sounds fine to me, if only by analogy with "forget" - "forgotten".
I think in your example, a British speaker wouldn't even use the same
verb in his version of "I have gotten to go". Seems to me that the very
usage of "get" as "succeed" is primarily American.
But I can't offhand think what the British equivalent might be. And I
AM British (albeit transplanted)!
...Robert
|
| 945.2 | | MCIS5::WOOLNER | Photographer is fuzzy, underdeveloped and dense | Fri Feb 07 1992 11:56 | 14 |
| > I have gotten to go to the party (I have succeeded)
Though I don't speak for all 50 states, it looks OK to this American
(though I'd probably say "I got to go to the party!"--past tense, or
"I get to go to the party"!"--future) (Or,"Here I AM! The party
can start now!")
> I have got to go to the party (I am obliged)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Got" is unnecessary. "Mom says I have to go to the party because
Great-Aunt Mustysweater will be there."
Leslie
|
| 945.3 | No "GOTS" - Lots of Glory. | SKIVT::ROGERS | What a long strange trip it's been. | Fri Feb 07 1992 12:27 | 11 |
| re .-1
> "Got" is unnecessary. "Mom says I have to go to the party because
> Great-Aunt Mustysweater will be there."
I was taught that "got" (and probably "gotten" too) are ALWAYS unnecessary.
I'm sure some Joy o' Lexer can prove me wrong, but I can't think of a sentence
which really needs "got" for clarity or expressiveness.
Larry
|
| 945.4 | | IEDUX::jon | Air travel shrinkwraps the world | Fri Feb 07 1992 12:40 | 11 |
| Re .1,
> I think in your example, a British speaker wouldn't even use the same
> verb in his version of "I have gotten to go". Seems to me that the very
> usage of "get" as "succeed" is primarily American.
> But I can't offhand think what the British equivalent might be. And I
> AM British (albeit transplanted)!
How about, "I managed to go to the party?"
Jon
|
| 945.5 | My eyes are turning yellow. | TERZA::ZANE | Imagine... | Fri Feb 07 1992 12:46 | 4 |
|
Oh man, I gots to go!!
|
| 945.6 | | RDVAX::KALIKOW | Partially Sage, and Rarely on Time | Fri Feb 07 1992 13:44 | 3 |
| ... that's all I had to say ...
:-)
|
| 945.7 | Ill-gotten | SSDEVO::GOLDSTEIN | | Fri Feb 07 1992 14:26 | 11 |
| According to Fowler:
'Gotten' still holds its ground in American English. In British
English it is in verbal uses (i.e. in composition with 'have',
'am', etc.) archaic and affected; but as a mere participle or
adjective it occurs in poetical diction ('On gotten goods to live
contented') and in mining technicalities ('The hewer is paid only
for the large coal gotten; There is no current wage rate per ton
gotten') and in the cliche 'ill-gotten gains'.
Bernie
|
| 945.8 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Fri Feb 07 1992 15:45 | 9 |
|
Re: .5 by TERZA::ZANE
I had the same thought -- "I got to go to the party" is an ambiguous
statement here in New England because it is pronounced a lot like:
"I got to go to the potty"
JP
|
| 945.9 | | VENICE::SKELLY | | Fri Feb 07 1992 23:21 | 14 |
| The sentence "I have gotten to go to the party" sounds perfectly awful
to this native speaker of American English. I would never say it and
would offer a perplexed expression in response to any American who did.
I would say "I got to go to the party." The sentence "I have got to go
to the party" implies obligation or great desire, depending on the
inflection, but I would never interpret it, even in writing, as a past
event.
An example of the use of the word "gotten" that sounds natural to me
would be "I've gotten some interesting things in the mail lately", The
sentence "I've gotten to go to parties every night this week" isn't
perfectly awful, but it's still awkward. I would accept it as a
listener without any trouble, but as a speaker I'd avoid the
construction.
|
| 945.10 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Sat Feb 08 1992 03:27 | 7 |
| At school (England) I was taught that "got" should almost
invariably either be eliminated or be replaced with a verb more apt. Any
boy using the word in an essay had a mark deducted regardless of the
context.
As for "gotten", my experience agrees with Fowler. Except for "ill
gotten gains" I have only heard it from Americans.
|
| 945.11 | | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Mon Feb 10 1992 08:37 | 8 |
|
Dave,
Do they teach that about "get" as well? I.e., is it proper to say, "I
get to go to England!"
JP
|
| 945.12 | Mrs Thistlebottom rides again | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Caveat vendor | Mon Feb 10 1992 08:40 | 13 |
| 945.13 | | SHALOT::ANDERSON | Egregious Fopdoodle Manque | Mon Feb 10 1992 08:53 | 3 |
| > -< Mrs Thistlebottom rides again >-
Please! That's *Miss* Thistlebottom.
|
| 945.14 | I have been permitted to go to England? | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Mon Feb 10 1992 09:52 | 5 |
| re: .11
Approved forms would probably have been "I am allowed to go to
England", or "I will go to England", or "I must go to England", or "I
will be going to England". I assume I am interpreting the "get to go"
correctly?
|
| 945.15 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Mon Feb 10 1992 10:04 | 6 |
| Some of the variants in .14 depend on whether you wish to emphasise
the time (or duration) of the permission (or order) to go to England.
"I will be going to England" or "I will go to England" are neutral with
respect these. There is also the "shall" versus "will" nuance in
English. Not being American I am not sure where "get to" fits in to
this scheme.
|
| 945.16 | 'get to' means it's a _plum_ | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Mon Feb 10 1992 10:53 | 6 |
|
To me, "I get to go to England" implies something like "I will have the
(great) good fortune of going to England." And the same good fortune
implication is there in the past tense.
JP
|
| 945.17 | | JIT081::DIAMOND | bad wiring. That was probably it. Very bad. | Mon Feb 10 1992 21:32 | 6 |
| I got to get to get to England. I'll die if I don't receive permission.
Meanwhile, of course it is possible to rewrite any sentence without
using the words "get" and "got." It's also possible to rewrite any
sentence without using the word "have." It's possible to write my
thoughts on this matter without using the word "teacher."
|
| 945.18 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Tue Feb 11 1992 00:20 | 1 |
| But can you do it without the letter 'e'?
|
| 945.19 | | SSDEVO::GOLDSTEIN | | Tue Feb 11 1992 13:49 | 5 |
| > But can you do it without the letter 'e'?
What's so hard about that? Why, it's downright simpl.
Bernie
|
| 945.20 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 11 1992 15:30 | 1 |
| There's a novel that's written entirely without the letter e.
|
| 945.21 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Tue Feb 11 1992 16:08 | 1 |
| Right. That was my unstated reference.
|
| 945.22 | My take on "I got" | WOOK::LEE | Wook... Like 'Book' with a 'W' | Thu Mar 12 1992 13:43 | 11 |
| "I got" has always meant "I received" to me, usually accompanied by an ellipsis
of some sort.
"I got to go to England." == "I received [permission] to go to England."
"I got to go to England." == "I received [an opportunity] to go to England."
"I have got" or "I've got" has always meant "I must be allowed" to me.
"I've got to go to England." == "I must be allowed to go to England."
Wook
|
| 945.23 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Thu Mar 12 1992 18:46 | 8 |
| Hmmm
"I got to go to England" has two meanings for me:
1. "I received permission to go to England," and
2. "I must go to England," sometimes said as
"I gotta go to England."
|
| 945.24 | Fish alert | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Caveat vendor | Fri Mar 13 1992 08:15 | 7 |
| 945.25 | | DATABS::LASHER | Working... | Fri Mar 13 1992 10:13 | 5 |
| Re: .24
In the States, too.
Lew Lasher
|
| 945.26 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Fri Mar 13 1992 12:32 | 11 |
| Re: .-1 and .-2
Yes, I agree. A compulsory trip to England can be expressed in several
ways:
"I must go to England."
"I got to go to England." (This is the ambiguous one.)
"I gotta go to England."
`I have got to ...'
and probably more.
|
| 945.27 | Just kidding | RICKS::PHIPPS | | Mon Mar 16 1992 12:23 | 4 |
| > Yes, I agree. A compulsory trip to England can be expressed in several
> ways:
Including "why me?"
|
| 945.28 | Not ambiguous to me | WOOK::LEE | Wook... Like 'Book' with a 'W' | Wed Mar 18 1992 17:30 | 6 |
| "I got to go to England." (This is the ambiguous one.)
This is not ambiguous to me. I always interpret this case as "I had the
opportunity...."
Wook
|
| 945.29 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed Mar 18 1992 20:55 | 4 |
| Re: .-1
It is ambiguous to me. One of the meanings is your, "I had the
opportunity to go ...." The other is, "I must go ...."
|
| 945.30 | | VMSMKT::KENAH | And became willing... | Thu Mar 19 1992 10:09 | 9 |
| No, the "I must go..." variation is already covered by "I gotta go..."
Also, it seems as if we're mixing spoken English and written English.
I'll say "I gotta go..." and I'll write it that way if I'm trying to
imitate spoken English; if, however, I'm writing something meant to be
read, I'll use "I have to go..." or "I must go.." to indicate
obligation, and "I got to go..." to indicate opportunity.
andrew
|
| 945.31 | have to agree | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | | Thu Mar 19 1992 10:50 | 15 |
|
>> No, the "I must go..." variation is already covered by "I gotta go..."
>> Also, it seems as if we're mixing spoken English and written English.
>> I'll say "I gotta go..." and I'll write it that way if I'm trying to
>> imitate spoken English; if, however, I'm writing something meant to be
>> read, I'll use "I have to go..." or "I must go.." to indicate
>> obligation, and "I got to go..." to indicate opportunity.
I agree with you, Andrew. The other construct to
indicate obligation is "I've got to go", which is unnecessarily
wordy, but nonetheless popular. "I got to go" indicates
only opportunity.
Di
|