Conference thebay::joyoflex

Not all College English teachers are literate, kind, or sane. A few are 
none of the above. Ignore them. Read your dictionary.

    
    
    
    
    
    
               "I GOT rhythm, who could ask for anything more?"

        
    
    
    
    
    
    

    No doubt that "got" is a correct form of "to get", but
    what does "to get" mean ?
    
    The question in .0, as I understand it, is more about style 
    than grammar. "To get" means about anything you want. I've not 
    checked anything, but I believe that any dictionary shows at 
    least 20 different meanings for this verb, eg "to obtain",
    "to become", "to have", "to receive" etc ... 
    I also had an English teacher who fighted the usage of "to get"
    as an all-purposes verb. He used to say that this verb, while
    correct, should be avoided in writing, and could always be replaced 
    by a more precise and elegant one.
        
    Perhaps he was getting too old ? Or did I get his lesson wrong ?

    Old TV show about spy Maxwell Smart, who was dumb.

    "Well dear, I'm off to obtain a haircut"(?)
    
    .3> I also had an English teacher who fighted the usage of "to get"
    .3> as an all-purposes verb.          ^^^^^^^
                                          
    how about "fought"? 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re .5:
    
    >"Well dear, I'm off to obtain a haircut"(?)
    
    In most normal usage, the phrase is, indeed, "..get a haircut."
    However, there is (or was) a linguistic anomaly -- at least unto
    1959 -- emanating from Brooklyn.  There, one whose intention was
    to visit a barbershop with the idea of having his hair trimmed would
    say, "I'm going to take a haircut."
    
    The first time I heard this, I asked, "Where do you plan to take
    it?"
    
    The answer was, "A barbershop, of course!"
    
    Later, I saw a comic-book story entitled, "The day Clark Kent took
    a haircut," and I had a pretty good idea the cultural origins of
    the author.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re: .5  Roger Liron is a native French speaker, for whom English
    is a second language.  I'd hate to lose his interesting contributions
    through quibbles over a minor slip forming a weak past tense on
    a strong verb.
    
    He makes the point that "get" is an extremely difficult verb for
    a non-native English speaker to use correctly.  I doubt whether
    many natives can either.  I only use it in colloquial speech, and
    would be hard-pressed to define "correct" usage.
    
    Jeff.

    But in New England it's "I took a cold."
    
    

	I believe our german cousins have one and that he lives in Himmel



@ @
 ^ )
\_/

Richard.

    Back again ...
    
    re. .1/.3
    
    Yes I had read my Oxford English (1984) and yes there is an entry
    for GOT in the p.p. / p.t. forms
    
    Perhaps I should have explained myself a trifle better.
    
    Whilst reading through previous notes in the LEX' conference I came
    across this gem amongst others.
    
    "I GOT onto the tanoy system and ... "
    
    Surely this CAN'T be right.
    
    Graham ...

    I can get a message, therefore I can confirm that I _got_ a message.
    
    I can go to get some groceries, and when I return I can tell my
    wife I _got_ them.
    
    I attempt to get onto a horse, and successful, I can say that I
    _got_ onto the horse.
    
    Children can get the measles. I _got_ them when I was a child.
    
    I've _got_ a number of reference books in my office.
    
    My son added several numbers and _got_ the correct answer.
    
    
    .....I could go on, but perhaps you _got_ the point several lines
    back.  If not, I've _got_ to throw in the towel.

    Re .10:
    
    I do not see (or feel) anything wrong with "I got onto the system.".
    You can get onto a train and then say "I got onto the train.".  You can
    get to sleep.  Webster's provides one meaning as "to reach or enter
    into a certain condition" and gives examples as "get to sleep" and "get
    married".
    
    
    				-- edp 

    
    Re 11.
    
    Why not use;
                     Receive
                     Bought            
                     Mount
                     Cought
                     Have
                     Attain
    
    instead of GOT in your sentences, or is the average English speaking
    persons vocabulary 'that' restricted.(perhaps not restricted , is
    the avereage English speaking person just lazy? ... that is another
    arguement)
    
    Graham 

    All the examples in .11 are good, until the very end:
    
>   back.  If not, I've _got_ to throw in the towel.
   
    This is certainly idiomatic American usage, but is much shakier
    than the other examples, because the "got" is just functioning
    as a placeholder here -- not as a past tense of "get".  The sentence
    might also be written (more properly?) as "I have to throw in
    the towel;" but when "I have" is contracted to "I've," you end
    up with "* I've to throw in the towel."  This is certainly not
    English.
    
    There appear to be two distinct uses of "got" in English (or
    at any rate American):
    
    1.  "Got" is the past tense of "to get," and is perfectly correct
    	when used as such.
    
    2.  The contraction of "have" and "has" to "'ve" and "'s" is
    	"standard" when "have" is being used as an auxilliary verb.
    	When "have" is used as the primary verb, its contraction
    	produces an ungrammatical sentence.  "Got" is commonly inserted
    	in this situation as a pseudo-verb (with no meaning), allowing
    	"have" to function as an auxilliary (even though it is in
    	fact the true verb) and legitimizing the contraction.
    
    This second usage is open to question.
    
    	-Neil

    Re: .13
    
    Why use a 25 cent word when a 2 cent word works just fine?  I see
    no risk of misunderstanding the meaning of the word _got_.
    
    I don't understand why it should be relegated to some sub-standard
    status simply because of some people may not think its sounds very
    cultured.  Do I detect a faint odor of snobbery?  :^)
    
    Re. .14
    
    I agree that the preferred statement should have been: "I shall
    have to throw in the towel."  That's precisely why I used the
    contraction form to illustrate still another accepted usage of the
    word _got_:  "I've _got_ to ..."

    
    
    Perhaps the author(plonka) of .15 should read notes 1 in this conference,
    
    Far from it being a faint odour of Snob'.
    
    I'm just plain English :^) (stir stir) a would enjoy hearing people
    
    using the 25 pence words instead of the two penny bit.
    
    It's a little richer !!
    
    Graham ...

    Re: .16
    
    I have read Note 1, thank you, but I fail to see what significance
    it has to the topic at hand.
    
    In contrast to your aversion to using the word "got" in an effort
    to make your language richer, I note your usage of words and
    expressions which mean nothing to me.  Hence, your attempt at
    communicating has been less than successful.
    
    Specifically, what is meant by "...the author(plonka)..."?
                                                  ------
    Or, "I'm just plain English :^) (stir stir) a would enjoy...".
                                     ____ ____  _____________
    
    Perhaps you missed my reference to the KISS precept.  If you are
    unfamiliar with that one, I'd be happy to explain.

I think it was an Englishman, Winston Churchill to be exact, who first 
said something like:

"Old words are good words, and short words are the best words of all."

      Re .13
      
      I found ten errors in spelling, punctuation, and usage in reply
      .13.  Can you find them all?  Did I miss any?  
      
      None of the words listed in .13 as suggested replacement for
      'got' would work for the concept of 'getting to bed.'
      
      It's late, so I'm going to throw in the towel.  I've got to
      get to bed.
      
      Dave C.

    None of the usage guides I've consulted denigrates 'got'.  Here
    are some examples.
    
    Fowler:
    	
    	_Have got_ for _possess_ has long been good colloquial English,
    	but its claim to be good literary English is not universally
    	conceded.  The OED calls it 'familiar', the COD 'colloquial'.
    	It has, however, the authority of Dr. Johnson ('He has got a
    	good estate' does not always mean that he has acquired, but
    	barely that he possesses it), and has long been used by many
    	good writers.  Philip Ballard in a spirited defense, citing
    	not only Johnson but also Shakespeare, Swift, and Ruskin,
    	concludes 'The only inference we can draw is that it is not
    	a real error but a counterfeit invented by schoolmasters'.
    
    
    Strunk and White:
    
    	The colloquial _have got_ for _have_ should not be used in
    	writing.  The preferable form of the participle is _got_,
    	not _gotten_.
    
    	  They returned without          They returned without
    	  having gotten any.             having got any.
    
    
    Bernie

    Ah, teacher, how do I say "I've got to go!" ?
    
    Oh, I should say "I ought to go?"  Well, I had better go soon!
    
    

    Re: .21
    
    As a proponent of "got", I hate to say it, but a substitute for
    your example is easy.  "Teacher, I have to go!"
    

    Re .21, .22:
    
    No, for the degree of urgency implied, you ought to say, "Teacher,
    I _gotta_ go!!!"
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re: .23
    
    Yes. There are occasions when grammar is less important than action;
    or else, one would have to say: "Nevermind - I went."
    
    Bernie

    Yeah, some English teachers were really smart!  They were trying
    to get rid of GOT even before Fortran was invented!
    
    I mean, they were trying to rid the language of GOT even before...
    
    Theorem:  Every English sentence can be expressed in equivalent
    form without the use of DUE, FOUR, WILL, IT, ELF, and ANTHILL.

Re .25

>    Theorem:  Every English sentence can be expressed in equivalent
>    form without the use of DUE, FOUR, WILL, IT, ELF, and ANTHILL.

What about the quoted sentence above?

Dave C.

    How about "Four ants carried the elf into the anthill"?
    
    --bonnie