NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question for you.

I've come across this on more than one occasion now and it puzzles me.

When "have" is used as an auxiliary verb, it is often abbreviated. No problem there, like in the following:

I have done this.
I've done this.
Now comes the part which gets tricky in my understanding of the language:

I have a car.
In that sentence "have" is the main verb.

Would it be acceptable/correct/common usage to abbreviate this one as well?

It somehow feels wrong but my spider-sense could be a little off:

I've a car.
This last example is what simply doesn't feel right but I have no idea why that is or whether it's simply something I haven't come across often enough to incorporate it into my personal database of correct English.

I appreciate your help.

From my experience, i think it would sound okay to say
"i've a car i can use", but in writing i don't think that would be the correct way to say it.

Grammatically, i dont see why not...

It just doesnt sound good when you say it...

i don't say that, nor does anyone i know, but maybe people in other parts of the country do. like in Yorkshire they often miss out "the" in sentences... its weird >.>

how are you GN? i'm sure glitzi says hi :)

its fine. there may even be people who talk that way.

Hallo!

"I have a car" klingt ja besser. Ich weiss nicht, warum es so is', aber ja, da is' es! (probably in terrible German, tut mir leid and all that)

(it probably sounds because it's an even number of syllables)

like in Yorkshire they often miss out "the" in sentences.
Eh, that's a bit sweeping.

We don't in York, and in the retarded bits of Yorkshire like Leeds and such, they still add a little 't' sound where the 'the' should be.

Psh, Like England knows how to speak English...

Speak American, thats the real English Language, aint it? lol :p

I'm grammatically nonconformist, so "I've a car." sounds right good to me.

Eh, that's a bit sweeping.

We don't in York, and in the retarded bits of Yorkshire like Leeds and such, they still add a little 't' sound where the 'the' should be.

Irony in action.

Eh, that's a bit sweeping.

We don't in York, and in the retarded bits of Yorkshire like Leeds and such, they still add a little 't' sound where the 'the' should be.

oh yeah, fair enough... i was making a big generalisation there. my bad http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-036.gif

I'm grammatically nonconformist, so "I've a car." sounds right good to me.
When you grow older you'll conform... *stares at you like an old man*

Irony in action.
Yes, that's how it was meant :p
oh yeah, fair enough... i was making a big generalisation there. my bad http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-036.gif
*shakes fist*

<snip>

Your spider sense is good. It sounds odd, at least to an east coast American. Generally, you can't abbreviate the verb "to have" unless it functions as a helping verb. Or you could, but it would sound odd...

if you abbreviate it you would say I've got a car.
though for formal writing you want to avoid I've altogether (with most contractions). And saying it like that may make you sound a little country.

*shakes fist*

my only excuse is that i can probably count the number of times i've been to Yorkshire on... well.. a finger ;)

TV is where i get all my magic information from :)

you can say it if your a chav/peasant I guess but really anything in the expensive item commodity is said propah:

Welsh:
I've a bath

English:
my house has walls on all sides

try and prove me wrong ;)

TV is where i get all my magic information from :)
Eeh by gum, lad, that's not ' very good soooource, now, is it?

There we go.

Yes, that's how it was meant :p

*shakes fist*

:p sure it was, sure it was.

Grammatically, i dont see why not...

It just doesnt sound good when you say it...
That might be one of the reasons I've never abbreviated it as a main verb.
From my experience, i think it would sound okay to say
"i've a car i can use", but in writing i don't think that would be the correct way to say it.
I've seen it in a novel I read right now on more than one occasion. (Published in the UK)
i don't say that, nor does anyone i know, but maybe people in other parts of the country do. like in Yorkshire they often miss out "the" in sentences... its weird >.>

how are you GN? i'm sure glitzi says hi :)
I'm doing okay, I guess. A little bit on the stressed-out side of things. The next 4-6 weeks are going to be hell and NSG won't see much of me for I'll be writing my final paper in Linguistics (70-80 pages on Inversion - what was I thinking!!!)

Please tell Glitzi I say Hi! as well. Hope you guys are doing well!!!
its fine. there may even be people who talk that way.
So you wouldn't look at me funny had I said "I've a question for you"?!?

Have you actually encountered that?
Hallo!

"I have a car" klingt ja besser. Ich weiss nicht, warum es so is', aber ja, da is' es! (probably in terrible German, tut mir leid and all that)

(it probably sounds because it's an even number of syllables)
Dein Deutsch liest sich sehr gut - vor allem die Apostrophierung is' der Hammer!


Anyway, keep it coming!

We don't in York, and in the retarded bits of Yorkshire like Leeds and such, they still add a little 't' sound where the 'the' should be.[/QUOTE]

In your example, "have" is the only verb. That's why it seems strange. "I have a car" is a simple subject-possessive verb-article-direct object sentence. Colloquially, it might be said as "I've got a car" where 'I' is still the subject, but 'have' is no longer the active verb. It is therefore acceptable to make a contraction. Of course, you would use the original "I have a car" in any formal writing project.

Lord Tothe, Master Of Written English (When He Feels Like It)

Have is the main word, because you have ownership ( or claimed it) of a physical subject.

By the way, I'm not english speaking, but these issues are part of my major.

Your spider sense is good. It sounds odd, at least to an east coast American. Generally, you can't abbreviate the verb "to have" unless it functions as a helping verb. Or you could, but it would sound odd...
Thanks. That's what I've always thought. Then again, I don't have any grammar rule for that one (or if I ever had it I really wouldn't know where it went).
if you abbreviate it you would say I've got a car.
though for formal writing you want to avoid I've altogether (with most contractions). And saying it like that may make you sound a little country.
True, but if you say "I've got a car" you render "have" into an auxiliary again.
In your example, "have" is the only verb. That's why it seems strange. "I have a car" is a simple subject-possessive verb-article-direct object sentence. Colloquially, it might be said as "I've got a car" where 'I' is still the subject, but 'have' is no longer the active verb. It is therefore acceptable to make a contraction. Of course, you would use the original "I have a car" in any formal writing project.

Lord Tothe, Master Of Written English (When He Feels Like It)
Yeah, I figured as much. But this is not about formal writing, this is more about my gut feeling being unhappy with abbreviating the main verb, especially since the stress is on the syllable that would get swallowed:

I háve a cár.
I've a cár.
Have is the main word, because you have ownership ( or claimed it) of a physical subject.

By the way, I'm not english speaking, but these issues are part of my major.
I stumbled across this when I was reading for fun to take my mind off the things I read for my major... And then... this!


Set aside the ruling on formal written English - it's the spoken language I'm predominantly interested in. (Or should I say in which I'm interested?)

And so far I haven't heard anyone actually say that. (Except for Ragnar Blackmane...)

So you wouldn't look at me funny had I said "I've a question for you"?!?


nope i wouldnt think twice.

especially if you have a german accent.

I've seen it in a novel I read right now on more than one occasion. (Published in the UK)


okay, but sometimes novel writers can get away with the occiasional incorrect wording or grammar, depending on what context they're writing.
So basically novel's might not be the best way to know how to spell, although they will help in regards to grasping the language no doubt, they are prone to misstakes sometimes.

I'm grammatically nonconformist, so "I've a car." sounds right good to me.
I'm a grammar nazi - prepare for war! :p

I'm a grammar nazi - prepare for war! :p
Aiee! :(

Oh - one thing regarding Germans speaking English - you guys use "this" a lot more than native speakers. "That", "those" or "the" is often more appropriate. Rely on your spider sense to know when to use it, I can't explain :p

(although I can understand why you do it, 'dies-' being handy in German and all that)

nope i wouldnt think twice.

especially if you have a german accent.
I believe it has more of a slight Southern accent to it zan ze true German one.

Would you also accept if I'd said:

I believe it's more of a slight Southern accent to it zan ze true German one.
okay, but sometimes novel writers can get away with the occiasional incorrect wording or grammar, depending on what context they're writing.
So basically novel's might not be the best way to know how to spell, although they will help in regards to grasping the language no doubt, they are prone to misstakes sometimes.
Tell me about it! Aside from the typical spelling mistakes (proof-reading used to be a real profession!) and the obvious spelling differences between BE and AE, reading in English is one of my past times.

Would you also accept if I'd said:

I believe it's more of a slight Southern accent to it zan ze true German one.
NEIN! (Because unless it's used as an auxilliary, 'has' should not be shortened, or people will confuse it with 'is')

It makes perfect grammatical sense to say "I've a car," but like most here have agreed, it's just not said. It's either left uncontracted or "got" is added, even though it's completely unnecessary. The only exception I can think of is in older expressions; for instance, my great-grandmother would say "I've a mind to" do something, but she also said "t'isn't" which is rarely used in America today.

Depends what form of grammar you prefer...Prescriptive (those same people who say "don't end a sentence with a preposition") would say that I've a car is incorrect because the main verb should not be contracted. Descriptive would say it's fine because the meaning is not lost or changed by contracting.

It's similar to the want to/wanna contraction.

I don't want to wash the car can easily become I don't wanna wash the car
I don't want to have you over struggles more to become I don't wanna have you over because of where the sense of "to" falls.

I've seen it in a novel I read right now on more than one occasion.

Just because you said you're really interested in spoken English--this sentence would be better rendered as, "I've seen it in a novel I'm reading right now."

Set aside the ruling on formal written English - it's the spoken language I'm predominantly interested in. (Or should I say in which I'm interested?)

If you want to speak English naturally, either is fine--more people would probably say "I'm predominantly interested in" but those who are true grammar nazis would say "in which I am interested". It isn't used much in conversation because it's an awkward construction.

Depends what form of grammar you prefer...Prescriptive (those same people who say "don't end a sentence with a preposition") would say that I've a car is incorrect because the main verb should not be contracted. Descriptive would say it's fine because the meaning is not lost or changed by contracting.

It's similar to the want to/wanna contraction.

I don't want to wash the car can easily become I don't wanna wash the car
I don't want to have you over struggles more to become I don't wanna have you over because of where the sense of "to" falls.

That's where I use duwanna: "I duwanna have you over!" ;)

Aiee! :(
Oooh. :(
Oh - one thing regarding Germans speaking English - you guys use "this" a lot more than native speakers. "That", "those" or "the" is often more appropriate. Rely on your spider sense to know when to use it, I can't explain :p

(although I can understand why you do it, 'dies-' being handy in German and all that)
Fascinating, captain. I'll keep an open ear and eye on the matter.

On a side note, you got Dr. Dre in my head now: "It's like that and like this and like that and uh" :headbang:
NEIN! (Because unless it's used as an auxilliary, 'has' should not be shortened, or people will confuse it with 'is')
You and I know that. But does Ashmoria?

You wouldn't happen to have a sound grammar rule on this one, eh?
It makes perfect grammatical sense to say "I've a car," but like most here have agreed, it's just not said. It's either left uncontracted or "got" is added, even though it's completely unnecessary. The only exception I can think of is in older expressions; for instance, my great-grandmother would say "I've a mind to" do something, but she also said "t'isn't" which is rarely used in America today.
Tis not fair. :D

I think it's acceptable. I say it occasionally, but I say a lot of things that people around here (Kentucky, US) sometimes think sound strange (or British). Like "rather" or "somewhat" as opposed to "kind of."

Anyhow, others are correct in pointing out that you're technically not supposed to use contractions in (formal) writing, but this is frequently flouted. If you stick with two words when using "have" as a main verb (verbally or in writing), you can't go wrong.

Depends what form of grammar you prefer...Prescriptive (those same people who say "don't end a sentence with a preposition") would say that I've a car is incorrect because the main verb should not be contracted. Descriptive would say it's fine because the meaning is not lost or changed by contracting.

It's similar to the want to/wanna contraction.

I don't want to wash the car can easily become I don't wanna wash the car
I don't want to have you over struggles more to become I don't wanna have you over because of where the sense of "to" falls.
Ooh - now it gets interesting.
Just because you said you're really interested in spoken English--this sentence would be better rendered as, "I've seen it in a novel I'm reading right now."
:headbang::headbang::headbang: *picture me as the Muppet repeatedly hitting his head on the piano for making a mistake*
You're right of course, and if it wasn't 4 a.m. I might not have made that silly beginner's mistake... I mean, the signal words "right now" are "right there"!!!

If you want to speak English naturally, either is fine--more people would probably say "I'm predominantly interested in" but those who are true grammar nazis would say "in which I am interested". It isn't used much in conversation because it's an awkward construction.
Funny you should say that (another one of those phrases that took me years to get used to) - for I have chosen to use the "in which" construction in my last paper whereas I sincerely doubt that I'd speak like that.
That's where I use duwanna: "I duwanna have you over!" ;)
Die wanna wanga?

I think it's acceptable. I say it occasionally, but I say a lot of things that people around here (Kentucky, US) sometimes think sound strange (or British). Like "rather" or "somewhat" as opposed to "kind of."
:cool:
Anyhow, others are correct in pointing out that you're technically not supposed to use contractions in (formal) writing, but this is frequently flouted. If you stick with two words when using "have" as a main verb (verbally or in writing), you can't go wrong.
I know. I've been studying English for more than 20 years now but these apparently simple things still puzzle me to no end without understanding the underlying grammatical concepts or having a grammar rule to support them.

Like, "Don't fething contract main verbs or you sound like a gak!" or something.

I think they do "I've a car" in the UK all the time. it just sounds like a more typically british idiom to me.

:headbang::headbang::headbang: *picture me as the Muppet repeatedly hitting his head on the piano for making a mistake*
You're right of course, and if it wasn't 4 a.m. I might not have made that silly beginner's mistake... I mean, the signal words "right now" are "right there"!!!

Don't sweat it. I'm in awe of your mastery of the language.

Funny you should say that (another one of those phrases that took me years to get used to) - for I have chosen to use the "in which" construction in my last paper whereas I sincerely doubt that I'd speak like that.

Perfect usage. I also use "in which" in papers but rarely say it aloud.

:headbang::headbang::headbang: *picture me as the Muppet repeatedly hitting his head on the piano for making a mistake*
You're right of course, and if it wasn't 4 a.m. I might not have made that silly beginner's mistake... I mean, the signal words "right now" are "right there"!!!


Don't beat yourself up. Your mastery of English is quite impressive, and your English (at least written; I've not heard you speak.) is definitely far better than many people I know at my school.

I just realized something with that last paragraph. Contracting "I have" (as a main verb) sounds very normal to me when followed by "not" or "no," especially when the accent/emphasis (I'm not sure if those are interchangeable.) would be placed on the "not" or "no." As in "I've no car."

i wouldn't cuz it sounds awkward to me, but that's not to say it's not acceptable. especially since proper grammar really isn't important in spoken english to be understood. my gran would say "i've to go to the doctor's this afternoon" for example. i'm not sure anyone would abbreviate in your example though unless there was a "got" in there after the "have".

hmm, actually, i might say for example "i've a complaint i'd like to file". studying english grammar has always struck me as a futile endevour. there are few hard and fast rules that anyone but pedants and linguists adhere to. vocabulary and etymology is far more interesting.

I think they do "I've a car" in the UK all the time. it just sounds like a more typically british idiom to me.

no

I just realized something with that last paragraph. Contracting "I have" (as a main verb) sounds very normal to me when followed by "not" or "no," especially when the accent/emphasis (I'm not sure if those are interchangeable.) would be placed on the "not" or "no." As in "I've no car."haha, I was just thinking how british english avoids that because the contraction comes between have and not, not I and have: "I haven't the foggiest" as opposed to "I've not the foggiest"...so it's not something that works universally. the usage you're referring to is pretty common though.

nothus spake the Scot. I could very well be wrong...I was thinking of a particular accent, not the general populace, but whatever.

haha, I was just thinking how british english avoids that because the contraction comes between have and not, not I and have: "I haven't the foggiest" as opposed to "I've not the foggiest"...so it's not something that works universally. the usage you're referring to is pretty common though.

Maybe it only works with "no" then. Now that I think about it "I've not a car." sounds somewhat awkward, whereas "I've no car." doesn't, no matter where the emphasis is placed. You could say "`I've no car.", "I've `no car.", or "I've no `car." depending on context.

my only excuse is that i can probably count the number of times i've been to Yorkshire on... well.. a finger ;)


That be thy middle finger?

It sounds a bit weird, but I'd be fine with someone saying that.

I have a question for you.

I've come across this on more than one occasion now and it puzzles me.

When "have" is used as an auxiliary verb, it is often abbreviated. No problem there, like in the following:

I have done this.
I've done this.
Now comes the part which gets tricky in my understanding of the language:

I have a car.
In that sentence "have" is the main verb.

Would it be acceptable/correct/common usage to abbreviate this one as well?

It somehow feels wrong but my spider-sense could be a little off:

I've a car.
This last example is what simply doesn't feel right but I have no idea why that is or whether it's simply something I haven't come across often enough to incorporate it into my personal database of correct English.

I appreciate your help.
"I've" is a contraction of "I have," which (almost) always denotes the usage of the present perfect.

You could probably say it, and in fact I'm sure it's common in some areas. You might not want to declare "I've a car," in elitist, high brow circles.

Oh, and let me just add that your command of English grammar is good. :)

Your spider sense is good. It sounds odd, at least to an east coast American. Generally, you can't abbreviate the verb "to have" unless it functions as a helping verb. Or you could, but it would sound odd...

^this, and I'm from Oklahoma and we have notoriously bad grammar.

It is both grammatically correct and sounds fine to me. In fact, I'll contract possessives like that all the time colloquially. "I've a car" or "I've only a few minutes to do this" etc. I probably do it more often than my peers, but I've a feeling that people do it quite a bit without even noticing it.


harharhar, you see what I did thar, btw.

when i speak it out load it is "Oi Hath a Car"

Would it be acceptable/correct/common usage to abbreviate this one as well?Not where I'm from. "I have a car" or "I've got a car" are acceptable.

If someone said to me "I've a car" I would know what they were trying to say to me without there being any ambiguity. That is all that matters really.

i don't say that, nor does anyone i know, but maybe people in other parts of the country do. like in Yorkshire they often miss out "the" in sentences... its weird

Nah, in Yerkshur we just shorten "the" to "t'" - it has the benefits of meaning either just "the" or "to the":

Ah'm off darn t'pub luv, ah'll lettus bairn step wiv us

Well, there goes my theory. I was going to attribute it to the age gap: those of us to whom "I've" sounds okay being, um, mature. But here's Liminus saying it sounds okay, too. Hmm.

Maybe it's just one of those odd survivals, the way emigrant groups often preserve dated speech patterns from their homeland.

I think they do "I've a car" in the UK all the time. it just sounds like a more typically british idiom to me.

Don't sweat it. I'm in awe of your mastery of the language.
Thanks. Lord knows I worked hard to get this far.
Perfect usage. I also use "in which" in papers but rarely say it aloud.
True. True.
Don't beat yourself up. Your mastery of English is quite impressive, and your English (at least written; I've not heard you speak.) is definitely far better than many people I know at my school.
Thanks, mate. I just try to be as perfect as possible and understand the underlying linguistic workings while at it.[/QUOTE]
I just realized something with that last paragraph. Contracting "I have" (as a main verb) sounds very normal to me when followed by "not" or "no," especially when the accent/emphasis (I'm not sure if those are interchangeable.) would be placed on the "not" or "no." As in "I've no car."
Most rules are based on what is said and whether the message is brought across without problem or chance for misunderstanding.
i wouldn't cuz it sounds awkward to me, but that's not to say it's not acceptable. especially since proper grammar really isn't important in spoken english to be understood. my gran would say "i've to go to the doctor's this afternoon" for example. i'm not sure anyone would abbreviate in your example though unless there was a "got" in there after the "have".
The more examples I "hear" or see, the less strange it sounds. Maybe it has to do with how one emphasizes the sentence.
hmm, actually, i might say for example "i've a complaint i'd like to file". studying english grammar has always struck me as a futile endevour. there are few hard and fast rules that anyone but pedants and linguists adhere to. vocabulary and etymology is far more interesting.
There... that'd be me. :eek:
"I've" is a contraction of "I have," which (almost) always denotes the usage of the present perfect.

You could probably say it, and in fact I'm sure it's common in some areas. You might not want to declare "I've a car," in elitist, high brow circles.

Oh, and let me just add that your command of English grammar is good. :)
Thank you. And in elitist circles I would surely state that "I've three dozen cars" (although IRL, I only have a bike).
^this, and I'm from Oklahoma and we have notoriously bad grammar.
Thanks, Smunkee.
It is both grammatically correct and sounds fine to me. In fact, I'll contract possessives like that all the time colloquially. "I've a car" or "I've only a few minutes to do this" etc. I probably do it more often than my peers, but I've a feeling that people do it quite a bit without even noticing it.
Probably so.
harharhar, you see what I did thar, btw.
I did. Clever. :p
when i speak it out load it is "Oi Hath a Car"
Hast thou really?
Not where I'm from. "I have a car" or "I've got a car" are acceptable.
That's what I always thought...
If someone said to me "I've a car" I would know what they were trying to say to me without there being any ambiguity. That is all that matters really.
Yup.


Thank y'all for helpin' me out here. Appreciate it! (Yes, I do say y'all and pronounce it right, too!)

Thank y'all for helpin' me out here. Appreciate it! (Yes, I do say y'all and pronounce it right, too!)

But do you say "ain't" and drink sweet tea?

But do you say "ain't" and drink sweet tea?
Sure do. Ain't nothin' better than sweet tea. Except for maybe white lightning. Moonshine. From a jar. :D

I wouldn't say it but I don't see anything wrong with it, other than it sounding a bit weird. I would say "I've got a car". Hmm....

and helloooooo! :D:fluffle:

I wouldn't say it but I don't see anything wrong with it, other than it sounding a bit weird. I would say "I've got a car". Hmm....

and helloooooo! :D:fluffle:
Hello to you, too! :fluffle:

Little late for the show but better late than never. :D Thanks for your input as well, Glitzi!

"I've a car" is archaic, but correct, as far as I know.