Timeline for "They have *both* got ..." or "They *both* have got ..."
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2015 at 12:45 | history | bounty ended | Stephan Bijzitter | ||
| Mar 20, 2015 at 12:45 | vote | accept | Stephan Bijzitter | ||
| Mar 17, 2015 at 9:21 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Er, tweaked some text that was a bit too sloppy and slightly mis-worded.
|
| Mar 17, 2015 at 8:51 | comment | added | F.E. | @Araucaria You make a good point! But I fear that if I directly attempt to do that, I might end up in a quagmire (something similar to auxiliary verb vs lexical verb, which I had attempted to only briefly describe but probably didn't do it successfully enough). Maybe if you have any suggestions … :) -- Aside: interestingly there's the example "The twins both both closed the windows and locked the doors", and hopefully the question of its acceptability won't come up in mixed company (and hopefully no one will ask about it). | |
| Mar 17, 2015 at 1:26 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @F.E. I think, given past experience an all, it might probably be worth pointing out that quantificational adjunct and marker of co-ordination are both syntactic functions, not word categories, do you reckon? Yes, I know you've said "function as" but yanno, people can easily read that the same as "functioning as an adjective" and that kind of baloney. Oh +1, excellent post. Definitely worth the time :) | |
| Mar 16, 2015 at 15:57 | comment | added | F.E. | @JimReynolds If the examples "Are they tall?", "Is he here?" are grammatical and acceptable to you, then you'll notice that the verb and subject had undergone a subject-aux inversion that is common to closed interrogatives. Subject-aux inversion involves auxiliary verbs, and is one of the grammatical tests used to identify them. It is a property found with auxiliaries but not with lexical verbs. (Traditional grammar has muddled the waters with its historically inaccurate terminology, and the term "auxiliary verb" is an example of that.) | |
| Mar 16, 2015 at 5:50 | comment | added | Jim Reynolds | I intended my remarks as feedback responses to parts of your answer because I value the answer. Maybe (and I intend humbleness) one of my responses might somehow stimulate you to clarify or improve. Maybe not. I think I erred in styling my comments so that it appeared I was interested in asking new or tangential questions. I think you incorrectly identify "are" as an auxiliary in They are tall. | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 23:59 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 23:04 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @F.E.: Phooey on "vetted grammar sources", there's more to learning and using the English language than grammar. I have added a cognitive science reference to my answer. | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 22:19 | comment | added | F.E. | @JimReynolds Comment blocks are rather small, and lack much formatting. Perhaps consider asking your questions as their own threads? (Note that "HAVE got" is an idiom. If you want more info on that topic, perhaps open a question thread for it.) | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 20:30 | comment | added | Jim Reynolds | Re Have got I was just wondering to myself offhand if some idea about not splitting (some) phrasal verbs would cause some to think have both got is an error. // Are can be an aux in They are tall? It's the only verb. :) | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 18:06 | comment | added | F.E. | @BenVoigt Your comment sounds like an answer. Perhaps you could put it into an answer post, and maybe also provide some vetted grammar sources to support your position. -- EDIT: Oh, I see that you already have an answer post. Maybe you could consider adding some excerpts from vetted grammar sources that support your position into your answer post? | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 18:05 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | While it's true that 10/12 choices are not outright wrong, it's equally true that they all are ambiguous until the complete sentence is seen, and therefore alternatives should be preferred. That is, when encountered in this location in a sentence, the mind interprets "both" as a marker of coordination, and then when the second clause fails to arrive, has to reprocess the entire sentence as a quantifier. This can easily be avoided by joining "both" explicitly with the subject and saying "both of them", which should be preferred. | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 18:02 | comment | added | F.E. | @JimReynolds 2002 CGEL has on page 112, in the section on the idiom "HAVE got": "In both varieties, however, the perfect origin of have got is reflected in the fact that the have component of it is an auxiliary, absolutely incompatible with do ( * We don't have got enough tea--ungrammatical)." -- They also provide the examples: "I haven't got enough tea" with "Have I got enough tea?", and "I haven't got to read it all" with "Have I got to read it all?". So for their speakers, the verb HAVE is an auxiliary verb. | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 13:28 | comment | added | Jim Reynolds | Excellent information. Is have an auxiliary in have got, which is a phrasal verb usually = have indicating possession? In other words, is have got a multiword item which is a main verb instead of an aux + main verb, or might some authorities balk at "splitting" the verb? This is, by the way, a genuine wonderment, not an opinion posed as a question. And is the issue relevant? | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 11:37 | comment | added | Stephan Bijzitter | I doubt anyone is going to be able to top this, but there's still a few days left on the bounty! Provided no betters answers will be posted, you can be assured you'll receive the points in a few days. For now though, have my gratitude. | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 11:14 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 11:02 | history | undeleted | F.E. | ||
| Mar 15, 2015 at 11:02 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 10:56 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 10:49 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 10:42 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 10:27 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 10:16 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 10:00 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 9:45 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 9:32 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 9:14 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 9:04 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 966 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 8:41 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 8:36 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 8:26 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 8:13 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 8:05 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 7:56 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 7:39 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 484 characters in body
|
| Mar 14, 2015 at 22:14 | history | deleted | F.E. | via Vote | |
| Mar 14, 2015 at 22:14 | history | answered | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |