Can we substitute "have" with "own" or "possess" here?
"I have letters to write."
"I have letters to write."
Substitution of "have".
No.
Because "have" used in this context (obligation to do something) does not share a similar meaning to "own" or "possess" as it does in (for example):
I have a new car
Because "have" used in this context (obligation to do something) does not share a similar meaning to "own" or "possess" as it does in (for example):
I have a new car
<<I've got letters to write. >>
I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write?
I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write?
<<I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write? >>
What do you mean you can't see how it can be 'defended'. It is a conversational variant which is very widespread. Maybe it is ungrammatical, I don't know, but if you want to master English you must accept it.
What do you mean you can't see how it can be 'defended'. It is a conversational variant which is very widespread. Maybe it is ungrammatical, I don't know, but if you want to master English you must accept it.
<I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write? >
We're talking about (weakened) possession and obligation here. "Gotten" is another thing all together.
"Have and have got
The present tense form of have with got used for possession is more than twice as frequent in spoken BrE as in AmE:
I’ve got one sister and one brother.
(BrE)
I have a cousin who never married.
(AmE)"
The Cambridge Grammar of English.
We're talking about (weakened) possession and obligation here. "Gotten" is another thing all together.
"Have and have got
The present tense form of have with got used for possession is more than twice as frequent in spoken BrE as in AmE:
I’ve got one sister and one brother.
(BrE)
I have a cousin who never married.
(AmE)"
The Cambridge Grammar of English.
<<I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write?>>
it's just another form of "I have letters that I must write", with 'have' contracted, and 'must' replaced with 'got'.
I think you're mistaking it for something like "I've got letters that I've got to write" which would be someone at the office describing what's just turned up in their In-Tray, for example.
it's just another form of "I have letters that I must write", with 'have' contracted, and 'must' replaced with 'got'.
I think you're mistaking it for something like "I've got letters that I've got to write" which would be someone at the office describing what's just turned up in their In-Tray, for example.
I think you're mistaking it for something like "I've got letters that I've got to write" which would be someone at the office describing what's just turned up in their In-Tray, for example.
No, no mistake.
"I've got letters that I've got to write" (The "have" expresses pure possession.)
"I've got letters to write." (The "have" can express both abstract possession and duty at the same time.)
No, no mistake.
"I've got letters that I've got to write" (The "have" expresses pure possession.)
"I've got letters to write." (The "have" can express both abstract possession and duty at the same time.)
No, try this sentence on for size
I _______ a dog to walk
have
own
possess
As you can see in an instance such as this, the only one word answer that makes sense is "have", although there are phrases that can replace "have", It is simply easier to write "have"
or we could reword everything and eliminate "have" entirely, you choose.
I _______ a dog to walk
have
own
possess
As you can see in an instance such as this, the only one word answer that makes sense is "have", although there are phrases that can replace "have", It is simply easier to write "have"
or we could reword everything and eliminate "have" entirely, you choose.
<I _______ a dog to walk
have
own
possess
As you can see in an instance such as this, the only one word answer that makes sense is "have", although there are phrases that can replace "have", It is simply easier to write "have" >
Which shows that "have" has lost its meaning of pure possession.
have
own
possess
As you can see in an instance such as this, the only one word answer that makes sense is "have", although there are phrases that can replace "have", It is simply easier to write "have" >
Which shows that "have" has lost its meaning of pure possession.
There are a lot of ways "have" differs from words like "own" or "possess".
For instance, you can say "I have a sister.", but not "I own a sister." and you can say "I had lunch.", but not "I possessed lunch."
"Have" allows you to express abstract ownership, while the others express a more literal ownership.
For instance, you can say "I have a sister.", but not "I own a sister." and you can say "I had lunch.", but not "I possessed lunch."
"Have" allows you to express abstract ownership, while the others express a more literal ownership.
<For instance, you can say "I have a sister.", but not "I own a sister." >
But you can say I possess.
But you can say I possess.