McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
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:
--- Quote from: David Houk on May 30, 2006, 11:09:52 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I'd say if you recently received the pair of shoes, you'd have gotten it :P.
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!
--- Quote from: neminem on May 30, 2006, 06:00:11 PM ---Actually, I'd say if you recently received the pair of shoes, you'd have gotten it :P.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: David Houk on May 30, 2006, 06:26:15 PM ---Thanks for replying!
--- Quote from: neminem on May 30, 2006, 06:00:11 PM ---Actually, I'd say if you recently received the pair of shoes, you'd have gotten it :P.
--- End quote ---
Gotten exists strictly in American English, though. All other English speakers would simply use got.
--- End quote ---
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? ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version