Unimportant 'Language Missuses' 2: Mother May II

[Xuc Xac]

Personally, my favorite is when someone "has got" something (Almost always done with a contraction, like I've got, he's got, etc). You don't need both. If you've got something, then you have something. No need for the word got to be in there.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Maybe I'm just too hungry to focus. I not eaten breakfast yet.

[factotum]

(I would assume that at least right at the start of his conquest, William would take the same title as his predecesor for continuity)

Factoid I heard once: William never referred to himself as a conqueror, because as far as he was concerned Edward the Confessor had promised him the crown and thus his invasion was just him acquiring something he already owned.

[ForzaFiori]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Maybe I'm just too hungry to focus. I not eaten breakfast yet.

This is something I only had pointed out to me relatively recently, as opposed to something that has bugged me forever, which may be why I see it all the time in real life right now.

the phrase "I have got the item" (usually, this phrasing is used when "have" is in a contraction, so it'd be more likely heard as "I've got the item") and "I have the item" mean the same thing: There is an item in your possession right now. Yet the first has the extra word "got" in the sentence. The word is doing nothing.

Several languages have instances like this (the only one I can name off the top of my head is the word "ce" [it might be "ci", spelling is not my forte in my native language, let alone a second or third one] in Italian, meaning "there", but which is occasionally used with average (to have) in places similar to this), where a word that normally carries meaning appears in a sentence and is really doing nothing. Note that there are exceptions, such as if you are trying to emphasise that you did, indeed bring the item ("didn't you say you didn't have the item?" "No, I HAVE got the item"), but that is not the way the phrase is most often used.

Most of the language specialists I've asked (I've never done any research on it or anything, so I don't know where they get their info from) say that the main theory is it's there basically to make the language flow off the tongue better. Again, I don't know where that idea comes from, I've just heard it from English and Italian professors, and seen mention of similar things in other languages on places like DuoLingo and other language learning sites.

I hope this clarifies for you I'm also generally having trouble focusing by the time I get to come on this website to, so I'm sure it's not my most logically thought out stuff going onto the message boards. If not, I'll try again

[Xuc Xac]

I hope this clarifies for you I'm also generally having trouble focusing by the time I get to come on this website to, so I'm sure it's not my most logically thought out stuff going onto the message boards. If not, I'll try again

No. I said "I not eaten" to point out to you that the "have" in "have got" is the perfect auxiliary and not the same as the verb "to have". They cover the same situation but they aren't identical. Some dialects (like mine) distinguish between them.

"I have the item" = only describes the present moment : "I currently possess the item (I may have obtained it in the past or picked it up just now, but that information isn't provided)"
"I got the item" = describes the past : "I obtained or received the item in the past (and I may or may not still possess it)"
"I have got the item" = describes the past event that has an effect continuing in the present : "I obtained or received the item in the past and I still possess it now"

"I got" can be used for a future event to emphasize the certainty of its completion (i.e. it's as good as done). For example, when a ball is flying through the air and you're certain that you'll catch it, you'd say "I got it!" before catching it to let your teammates know that it's in your control and they should stay out of the way instead of trying to help.

In "I got" and "I have got", the verb is "to get". In "I have", the verb is "to have".

[ForzaFiori]

No. I said "I not eaten" to point out to you that the "have" in "have got" is the perfect auxiliary and not the same as the verb "to have". They cover the same situation but they aren't identical. Some dialects (like mine) distinguish between them.

"I have the item" = only describes the present moment : "I currently possess the item (I may have obtained it in the past or picked it up just now, but that information isn't provided)"
"I got the item" = describes the past : "I obtained or received the item in the past (and I may or may not still possess it)"
"I have got the item" = describes the past event that has an effect continuing in the present : "I obtained or received the item in the past and I still possess it now"

"I got" can be used for a future event to emphasize the certainty of its completion (i.e. it's as good as done). For example, when a ball is flying through the air and you're certain that you'll catch it, you'd say "I got it!" before catching it to let your teammates know that it's in your control and they should stay out of the way instead of trying to help.

In "I got" and "I have got", the verb is "to get". In "I have", the verb is "to have".

The only problem is, at least where I am, people use have, got, and have got essentially interchangeable, even when you don't need to emphasis or point out that difference. (with exceptions such as in baseball, where you pretty much only call a ball using "I've got it"). If someone shows up at your house and brings you a sixpack, they might walk in and say "I have beer," "I got beer," or "I've got beer" and really what they mean is "I brought beer." or "I have beer with me, right now." Even if you bring it from home and it's been sitting around your house forever (so there's no reason to emphasis that you, at some point, obtained this beer) you might still say "I've got beer!" when you walk in. All they mean is "I have beer." but they add extra words that dont matter. Yes it's still a legitimate sentance, but what is the point of adding that you obtained it? Of course you did! how else could you have it now? Unless you want me to know that you went by the store special just for this, or that I owe you moeny or something, there's no need to point it out.

[halfeye]

I was once told that "got" is always redundant and should never be used. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember how long.

[Peelee]

I was once told that "got" is always redundant and should never be used. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember how long.

I got that lesson too. Turned out, they got it all wrong.

[veti]

I was once told that "got" is always redundant and should never be used. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember how long.

My English teacher said something like that when I was about 14. "Try leaving the word 'got' out, usually the sentence will work fine without it."

A few years later, when I took up journalism, I realised that's a good test for every other word as well.

[Vinyadan]

Odd, using "I've got" is one of the first things you are taught when learning English as a second language.

[Peelee]

What matters here is that the present tense of get is acceptable, and but may god have mercy on your soul if you attempt the past or past participle.

[137beth]

When there is a film adaption of some other medium, and then later the same source material is adapted into another movie, it bugs me when people refer to the second film adaption as a "remake" of the first film adaption.

[Aedilred]

When there is a film adaption of some other medium, and then later the same source material is adapted into another movie, it bugs me when people refer to the second film adaption as a "remake" of the first film adaption.

Oooh, yeah, that bugs me too. To be entirely fair about it, sometimes it's not entirely clear-cut, and I suspect that usually, though not always, it's because the people saying it aren't aware of the original source material (though that doesn't make them right).

[factotum]

Oooh, yeah, that bugs me too. To be entirely fair about it, sometimes it's not entirely clear-cut, and I suspect that usually, though not always, it's because the people saying it aren't aware of the original source material (though that doesn't make them right).

Case in point: the famous Alfred Hitchcock movie "Psycho" was based on a 1959 novel by Robert Bloch. The 1998 movie is pretty close to being a shot-for-shot and line-for-line copy of the 1960 movie, so I think it would be entirely fair to call it a remake of the movie, not a second adaptation of the novel.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, I would say that depends how much is taken from each previous works.

[Bohandas]

Two things always bothered me about the song "America"

The first is that the tune is plagiarized, but that's beyond the scope of this thread

The second, and more to the point here, is that I can't figure out what the phrase "My country tis of thee" is supposed to mean. Translated into more modern English I'm pretty sure it would be "My country is of you", which doesn't seem like it has any meaning. The best guess I have is that it means something like "My country is also your country" but I'm far from sure of that, since it's rendered as if someone typed the intended meaning into Google Translate and translated it into five different languages and then back into English.

[georgie_leech]

Two things always bothered me about the song "America"

The first is that the tune is plagiarized, but that's beyond the scope of this thread

The second, and more to the point here, is that I can't figure out what the phrase "My country tis of thee" is supposed to mean. Translated into more modern English I'm pretty sure it would be "My country is of you", which doesn't seem like it has any meaning. The best guess I have is that it means something like "My country is also your country" but I'm far from sure of that, since it's rendered as if someone typed the intended meaning into Google Translate and translated it into five different languages and then back into English.

My country, it is of you... sweet land of freedom, I sing of you. It makes more sense with the context of the next line.

[Bohandas]

It still doesn't make sense and parsing it like that makes the next line not make sense either (and conversely it does make sense on its own, ie "Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing". Which is a bit Yoda-ish but still has a clear meaning

"it is of you" is not a valid construction in the english language.

[halfeye]

"it is of you" is not a valid construction in the english language.

It's poetic English, so that's usually the case.

"'Tis" is definitely an old timey/poetic abbreviation for "it is".

[veti]

"it is of you" is not a valid construction in the english language.

It makes sense if you insert a bit of punctuation:

My country, tis of thee - sweet land of liberty! - of thee I sing!

That is to say, the "sweet land" bit is a parenthetical aside in the apostrophising of his subject.

It's bad poetry, I'd say, but that's par for the period it was written.

[Bohandas]

It makes sense if you insert a bit of punctuation:

My country, tis of thee - sweet land of liberty! - of thee I sing!

That is to say, the "sweet land" bit is a parenthetical aside in the apostrophising of his subject.

It's bad poetry, I'd say, but that's par for the period it was written.

Ok, that makes sense now

[Jon_Dahl]

I wrote a paper on multilingualism that discusses this thread, the previous thread (i.e. 'part I'), and a thread found on a Finnish discussion forum. The paper was the final coursework for a course on multilingualism for postgraduated* English majors. The paper was graded a 4 on a scale of 0-5. If someone wants to read the paper, please PM me.

*MA level

[Peelee]

I wrote a paper on multilingualism that discusses this thread, the previous thread (i.e. 'part I'), and a thread found on a Finnish discussion forum. The paper was the final coursework for a course on multilingualism for postgraduated* English majors. The paper was graded a 4 on a scale of 0-5. If someone wants to read the paper, please PM me.

*MA level

How often am I referenced?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wrote a paper on multilingualism that discusses this thread, the previous thread (i.e. 'part I'), and a thread found on a Finnish discussion forum. The paper was the final coursework for a course on multilingualism for postgraduated* English majors. The paper was graded a 4 on a scale of 0-5. If someone wants to read the paper, please PM me.

*MA level

Can you post the abstract, at least?

Grey Wolf

[Jon_Dahl]

How often am I referenced?

Zero times, I'm afraid.

Can you post the abstract, at least?

Grey Wolf

Do you have to write an abstract for each and every coursework that you write in your country? Geesh, that's hard... I'm glad I don't study there. In other words, there is no abstract. It is very, very rare that we write abstracts here. I could write one if you wish, though.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Do you have to write an abstract for each and every coursework that you write in your country? Geesh, that's hard... I'm glad I don't study there. In other words, there is no abstract. It is very, very rare that we write abstracts here. I could write one if you wish, though.

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Zero times, I'm afraid.

Hopefully that won't affect the quality of your paper.

Hopefully.

[Jon_Dahl]

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

Once I get my current paper finished, I will do this.

[georgie_leech]

Not for every coursework, no, but you made it sound a bit bigger than regular coursework. I certainly had to write abstracts for every major delivery - final year projects and the like. Heck, I remember I was asked to do the equivalent of an abstract for a coding project, once.

If you don't have one already written, then I'd be nice to hear the TL;DR instead. Depending on what your a prioris and conclusions are, it might pique my interest enough to want to read the whole thing.

Grey Wolf

...Huh. On reflection, an Abstract is sort of like an academic TLDR, isn't it?

ETA before any of my professors hear about this: I mean, you very much shouldn't just read the abstract and think you understand a given work, but it has a similar function of giving you an overall view of the work so it's easier to put things into the context they are intended.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

...Huh. On reflection, an Abstract is sort of like an academic TLDR, isn't it?

It is absolutely a teal deer. A bit more formal, of course, but a teal deer nonetheless.

Grey Wolf

[veti]

...Huh. On reflection, an Abstract is sort of like an academic TLDR, isn't it?

An abstract is a substitute for reading the work, in the same way as the blurb on the back of a book. It won't tell you all about the contents, but it should let you decide with confidence that you don't care enough to read the rest.