Reply
Tue 22 Jul, 2008 04:03 am
You've got a fine physique.
You have a fine physique.
Is the first sentence AmE, while the second BrE?
Many thanks.
Either sentence might be used in American English. As i am not responsible for, nor well versed in the eccentricities of the speech of little old England, you'll have to wait for one of them to comment.
"You've got" is more informal, slangy, relaxed, conversational, etc. Fine for informal spoken English. "You have" is more formal, and would be used in written English, especially when the writer aspires to a high standard. As a child in 1950s England, I was always being told not to use "got" in that way.
They are synonymous in little old Britain.
The second is a little more "correct", but a little more stuffy. The first is more informal, more "chatty".
Re: have/have got
tanguatlay wrote:You've got a fine physique.
You have a fine physique.
Is the first sentence AmE, while the second BrE?
Many thanks.
got ain't got much physical support
contrex wrote:... As a child in 1950s England, I was always being told not to use "got" in that way.
By people who were repeating nonsensical things about language which they heard from people who were repeating nonsensical things about language, which they heard from people who were repeating nonsensical things about language, which they heard from people who were repeating ... .
JTT wrote:By people who were repeating nonsensical things about language which they heard from people who were repeating nonsensical things about language, which they heard from people who were repeating nonsensical things about language, which they heard from people who were repeating ... .
I fear I didn't make something clear. "Have" versus "have got" is (or was) a class thing in England at any rate, if not in Wales, Scotland or N. Ireland. Posh people said "I've a car waiting outside." Common people said "I've got a car waiting outside."
contrex wrote:JTT wrote:By people who were repeating nonsensical things about language which they heard from people who were repeating nonsensical things about language, which they heard from people who were repeating nonsensical things about language, which they heard from people who were repeating ... .
I fear I didn't make something clear. "Have" versus "have got" is (or was) a class thing in England at any rate, if not in Wales, Scotland or N. Ireland. Posh people said "I've a car waiting outside." Common people said "I've got a car waiting outside."
Being "posh" doesn't give anyone a better grasp of language. You can see some of the poshest of people saying the stupidest things about language. Charlie, the future king of England has made a number of stupid remarks about language.
JTT wrote:Being "posh" doesn't give anyone a better grasp of language. You can see some of the poshest of people saying the stupidest things about language. Charlie, the future king of England has made a number of stupid remarks about language.
JTT, I couldn't agree more! Personally, I'd line 'em all up against a wall & shoot 'em.
contrex wrote:JTT wrote:Being "posh" doesn't give anyone a better grasp of language. You can see some of the poshest of people saying the stupidest things about language. Charlie, the future king of England has made a number of stupid remarks about language.
JTT, I couldn't agree more! Personally, I'd line 'em all up against a wall & shoot 'em.
Okay, Contrex, I'll do the blindfolds and you can do the firing unless you'd rather leave that to Cjhsa. He'll shoot anything/one, anytime, anywhere.
Charles III would be the best thing that could happen to England . . . then the English might finally abandon the inertia of tradition and dispense with the monarchy . . . Queen Camilla would certainly lend great momentum to such a movement . . .
"Did you ever see an uglier horse face than that?"
"Frankly, no . . . and the Queen's horse wasn't too good looking, either."
Setanta wrote:Charles III would be the best thing that could happen to England . . . then the English might finally abandon the inertia of tradition and dispense with the monarchy . . . Queen Camilla would certainly lend great momentum to such a movement . . .
"Did you ever see an uglier horse face than that?"
"Frankly, no . . . and the Queen's horse wasn't too good looking, either."
You do a grave injustice to horses, Set, comparing Charles' visage to a horse.
Isn't it ironic though that just as they move to dumping royalty the USA adds a "king" who can do whatever he wishes. How did things get so royally screwed up?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace