What's so terribly ungrammatical with 'he hasn't a book'?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:37 pm

Using have without the auxiliary and without got is the least common of the three forms, but is still both used and correct where have is used possessively.

strider · Post by **strider** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:44 am

<b>JaunTwoThree</b>, Are you really saying that it's OK to teach 'felled' as the past of 'fall'?

No doubt it is easier for the teacher to let "little white lies" pass by but it is not very professional. Isn't this how fossilisation begins?

If teachers don't teach accurately and don't correct mistakes, what are they for?

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:34 am

No, felled as in fell, fells,felling, felled. And "tree-fellers wanted".

It'd be the same if a student wrote "I founded the university easily". We don't think "this great benefactor obviously deserves a brass plaque".

Whether or not "I haven't any brothers or sisters" falls into this category is less clear. After all it means the same without the "correction" of "don't have" or "got". But I maintain that there's not much difference between "This is clearly wrong because it has a meaning that, although it exists, is completely different from what the writer meant to say and, moreover, the writer probably had no idea that did exist" ( as in "felled" "canned" "founded" "spoked" etc) and "The writer has, though demonstrating his or her misunderstanding of something so basic as forming negatives with an auxiliary, accidentally been correct although he/she had no idea that said possibility did exist".

Either way it's out with the red ink. Well I use a tactful green in fact.

strider · Post by **strider** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:25 pm

Sorry, JaunTwoThree, my mistake.

I think the point about this question is more about the quality of the communication, rather than whether the form is accurate or not.

Some years ago, I saw an example of this, which may help to illustrate the problem. A colleague used an old text with a group of students (who were mostly managers from a local company). The text included the sentence 'the man wore a splendid suit'. Later, over a coffee, I talked to one of the students about a region of the country that she knew well. She recommended one place to me because it had 'a splendid castle.'

Of course, what she said was correct but to my ear it sounded really old fashioned. It made me realise that, particularly for business communication, it is not just a question of speaking accurately. It means we have a duty to teach our students current, up-to-date English. In turn, it follows that teachers should do their best to keep abreast of changes in the language.

If not, our students will find they haven't the splendid results they would like!

JuliaM · Post by **JuliaM** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:45 pm

Strider,
Your post reminds me of the instructions on a new mop I bought once. They were carefully translated using, no doubt, one of those dictionaries that have incredibly obsolete words in them. Anyway, according to the directions, after I had mopped my floor it would be "resplendent".

Julia

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:41 pm

"The writer has, though demonstrating his or her misunderstanding of something so basic as forming negatives with an auxiliary, accidentally been correct although he/she had no idea that said possibility did exist".

If the writer has no idea you need to use an auxiliary to form a question or a negative, then surely he will provide enough examples for you to correct, without having any need to pick on the one time he has done it grammatically.

It means we have a duty to teach our students current, up-to-date English. In turn, it follows that teachers should do their best to keep abreast of changes in the language.

Has there been any change in the use of stative 'have' without 'do'? The danger with what you are suggesting here is that you will end up imposing your limited forms on the student. In British English 'have' without 'do' is not uncommon, and if you insist on 'have got' in written English then you will fall foul of American authorities, such as the otherwise excellent Kilpatrick.
As for students overusing rare words, such as 'splendid', there is probably little that can be done about this, apart from pointing it out. It's not the end of the world anyway if they use it once or twice. It's the overuse that is the problem, but their interlocutor is unlikely to notice it.

strider · Post by **strider** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:04 pm

Hello Stephen Jones, thanks for your thoughts.

However, you said

In British English 'have' without 'do' is not uncommon

- is this true ?

Although I don't live in an English speaking country, I regularly read newspapers, magazines and Internet forums in English. I try to watch the BBC and CNN when I can (and I love the fact that I can hire a DVD at the end of my street and watch it in English!). And, unless I'm watching a period film, I don't find 'I haven't a book' any more.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:05 pm

I may not be as up to date as you Strider, but "splendid" doesn't sound old-fashioned to me, and I use it all the time. If I want to show encouragement to a student, I say "Splendid!" Am I teaching them all to be old-fashioned?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:32 pm

I don't go listening out for it.
Normal spoken BrE is "I haven't got a book". Many consider "haven't got" to be inappropriate for written English (Quirk and Greenbaum call it "informal") so you will see and sometimes hear it used in more formal situations. Indeed if you live in France I suspect it is the belief that "have got" is vulgar (a belief expressed strongly also by American sources such as Kilpatrick) that causes teachers to use the form "I haven't".
Where 'have' is still often heard without 'do' is in pro-forms such as
"Blunkett has a lot of problems, and so has Blair", though I would say 'does' is becoming increasingly common even in this case.
Teaching 'have' in a European context is a bit of a mess. Life would be a lot easier if we could only teach the 'do' form, since it will be always correct, but with European students more likely than not to spend some time in the UK and be exposed to UK media, there is the problem that 'have got' is by far the most common British form for the stative 'have'.
But to go back to your original point '"I haven't a book" sounds neither archaic nor stilted., and anybody who holds the opposite view is both a cad and a bounder

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:51 pm

There is the problem that 'have got' is by far the most common British form for the stative 'have'.

I really don't see the problem, Stephen. Just teach them all three forms with an explanation about formality and what impressions they'll give to native speakers. We wouldn't want to give the students the impression that they can use any form in any situation so long as it's grammatically correct, right?

I must be one of your cads as I find the forms "I haven't got/don't have a book" far more natural sounding than "I haven't a book", which I do find rather stilted.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:14 pm

I agree that all three forms have to be taught at some stage. The problem only arises if you only teach 'have got'.

I am coming round to the idea that we should teach the form with 'do' as the form students should use and the others for recognition purposes only.

I find 'I haven't got/I don't have' more 'natural', but I'm not sure whether 'I haven't' is stilted/formal or simply less common.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:25 pm

I find 'I haven't got/I don't have' more 'natural', but I'm not sure whether 'I haven't' is stilted/formal or simply less common.

Doesn't the fact that it's less common automatically mean it's the form most likely to make people raise an eyebrow and ask "Why did s/he put it that way"?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:50 pm

Doesn't the fact that it's less common automatically mean it's the form most likely to make people raise an eyebrow and ask "Why did s/he put it that way"?

Not necessarily. I wouldn't say I have ever even noticed when the form was used.
Equally the form "we have no" is probably a lot less common than "we don't have any", but I doubt if it would call anybody's attention.

Perhaps your raised eyebrow is in need of a manicurist?

strider · Post by **strider** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:36 am

Well, Stephen, despite your pronouncements, I'm still not happy with the sentence 'I haven't a book'.

However, I think it would be useful to look again at the context of the problem. In my original post on the subject (under the thread 'My biggest gripe about teaching',) I said :

My biggest gripe has to be non-native fellow teachers who use outdated and ungrammatical English and refuse to change ('He hasn't a book' and 'I will ask to my friend' are the worst offenders). I understand the problem of 'fossilization' but I think it's just plain wrong to teach incorrect English.

In my school, there are several teachers who use this form and do not use any other. They are either looking for an easy life (to teach that 'HAVE' behaves like 'BE') or they are blissfully unaware of the fact that hardly anyone uses this form in modern English. So, when the students arrive in my class, they aren't happy that I use either 'I don't have a book' or 'I haven't got a book'. I've even had students complain that I don't know how to speak English correctly!

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:02 pm

I will ask to my friend' is wrong in any variety or register of English. I can't understand how you can put it in the same class as "I haven't a book".

I also fail to see why teaching 'have' to be the same as 'be' is any easier than teaching it as being the same as all other verbs, which use 'do'.

As I have said before 'haven't' is used in textbooks because there was a feeling that 'have got' was vulgar or slangy. I actually received that comment from a native English lecturer a publisher asked to review a textbook I wrote in the 1980s in Spain. I quoted Quirk and Greenbaum and pointed out that 'informal' was not the same as sub-standard.