|
I got to learn me some of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually both are incorrect. They should be:
If you have a programming question ...
or
Have you got a programming question ...
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think that Have you got a programming question would be correct. I think that simply Have a programming question? would be correct.
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite correct in English. 
|
|
|
|
|
From my service days, I heard guys say: "I think I've got the clapp". 
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to the use of these specific words, or are you stating that a language should be static and never change?
In my childhood, the old schoolmaster attitude was common in my country (Norway): The One, True, Correct, Proper way to use the language is as prescribed by a set of definitions in various documents, such as dictionaries.
Over the last fifty years, our attitude has changed from prescriptive to descriptive. If 95% of the speakers of the language uses a construct in an 'improper' way, what is the use of maintaining a rule insisting that they are 'wrong'? Who 'owns' a language - the rule book, or its users? What if 90% break the rule? 70%? 50% and increasing?
At what percentage / time did terrific, in the sense great, become 'proper'? Is its use in the old, proper sense of terrifying now improper use? Another negation: I could care less! has come to mean the same as I couldn't care less! - when did that become proper?
Maybe we should work to reverse all such changes of the language. The question is how far back should we go. Even the English language has changed continuously over the centuries. I have met people who insist, in their Norwegian writing, to use no word that isn't rooted in the pre-1300 Viking Norse language. Actually, almost all from the 'prescriptive' camp can be said to go for a 'descriptive' line, except that the description is of the language two generations back. Certainly not half a generation back, and not four generations, but what the schoolmaster touted as 'proper' when they were grade school kids.
Thirty years ago, Icelandic was one of the 'purest' languages in the Western world: When a new word was about to break into the language, the language program in Icelandic radio announced a competition for a replacement word based on Icelandic traditions. E.g. for 'computer' they took the old word for number, tall, and the word for a mythical truthsayer, volve, and made up the word tölvu, a number-truthsayer, for a computer. To travel is ferðast, so a portable PC is a fartölvu, a travel-number-truthsayer.
Today, Icelandic has more or less given in completely, new words are accepted much more directly. English never even tried to resist change. So I guess any resistance is futile. ("I Got It Bad And That Ain't Good"[^] - composed 81 years ago.)
My own approach is much in harmony with official Norwegian practice: When an imported word comes in widespread use, we make it a 'proper' Norwegian word, but we may adopt a modified Norwegian spelling that harmonizes with our pronunciation rules, and inflected forms are created by Norwegian rules. So some people insist that official Norwegian is 'improper' use, because we e.g. include the plural 's' in the root word: A cap is en caps, and plural caps is capser. Two generations ago, we adopted drops (as in 'fruit drops') and slips (of cloth, tie) as singular forms; today few people are aware that they were originally, and 'properly', plural.
We also accept new meanings of established words, once the new meaning reaches a certain level of usage. Take internet: In my student days, an internet interconnected heterogenous networks of different network protocols and addressing schemes. Nowadays, internet is the homogenous network of a single network protocol and a single addressing scheme. A trailer is the entire truck train, not just the 'real' trail, or even a large truck in a single piece.
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly agree that English needs extensive improvement with thinking and planning. Something new that happens because someone feels it could be an improvement could make things worse. Use of words for multiple purposes are more likely to add to the confusion. Use of got in this different manner adds to the confusion.
An example of a change that does not add value is the use of the apostrophe symbol instead of the quotation symbol for quotes, as in:
'wrong' instead of "wrong"
'proper' instead of "proper"
That change adds no value; it is more likely to cause confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Two things: firstly language isn't planned, it just happens; you can document how it's used at a point in time but that's just a snapshot (and a geographically-specific one).
Secondly (and I can't recall whether I was taught this or heard it) I believe that single quotes are used when quoting phrases etc. and double quotes are used when quoting something that was actually said/written, so we can discuss whether it's correct in general to say 'I got a question' or we can discuss whether Jane was correct to say "I got a question".
Regards
Nelviticus
|
|
|
|
|
In American English at least, double quotes are always used for quotes except in the case of nested quotes, which use single quotes. Using single quotes outside of a larger quote is just plain bad punctuation.
But no one even cares about grammar and spelling anymore, let alone the occult art of punctuation.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Probably programmers have gotten confused by the use of apostrophes for strings in many languages. And confusion like with the use of words can make communication difficult. A language must be understood by everyone using it.
|
|
|
|
|
"I've got news for you."
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
Given that "I've" is a contraction for "I have", this ultimately is the equivalent of "I have got news for you".
I see the former all the time. Not the latter. Are they both wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it safe to say you've gotten annoyed with that usage? 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
don't really 'give' a sh!t one way or the other.
Sorry. As long as a person communicates their intentions and needs to me and others. I got what they were after in their communication.
I work with a ton of people for whom English is their second or fourth language. And forcing them to have to keep track of these kind of stupid rules is what stops communication sometimes.
my .02
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: don't really 'give' a sh!t one way or the other. Sorry. As long as a person communicates their intentions and needs to me and others.
I guess that the issue is whether that person actually does communicate their intention to others, or not. In some contexts, animal grunting may be sufficient, but not for intellectual conversation.
Unambiguous messages may be essential for conveying information. I have had students getting really pissed at me for pointing out that "feilmelding", "error message" in English, is quite different from "feil melding", "wrong message" in English. The students insisted that asking them to change their wording was nitpicking, because everybody would understand from context that they meant "error message", even when they wrote "wrong message".
Sorry, I am not buying that. I do not trust that when you say something, the listener (/reader) will interpret it as something else. We should enforce clear, unambiguous communication in our everyday lives. We should of course be tolerant of language mistakes from those who are not fluent in the local language, but that is quite different from saying that we should abandon all rules of wording, grammar and spelling - even when the receiver of the message can make at least some sense out of it. Essential details may still be missed.
I can't remember a single case where I have pointed out some language 'weakness', whether in choice of words, grammar or pronunciation, whether in English or Norwegian, where my corrections/comments have caused negative reactions. Maybe I make my comments in a respectful and positive way
|
|
|
|
|
Yes forcing them to have to keep track of these kind of stupid rules is a huge problem in the English language. This is one of many examples that can cause confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: As long as a person communicates their intentions and needs to me and others
Exactly. However whilst changing the meaning of words (or adding a new meaning) is one thing *, changing the rules of grammar, and changing the meaning of phrases, is something else.
An example above, trønderen cites "I could care less". This is an Americanism that has not yet made its way (thank goodness) into the UK. Currently, if I hear someone say "I could care less" I would assume that they care. More than not at all, anyway. If the phrase does cross the Atlantic, we'll have a period where it will be impossible to understand that phrase, unless we know the speaker well. That does NOT lead to clear communication. Similarly, the term "could of" instead of "could have" has become very common, yet it is meaningless. The speaker is not trying to equate the meaning of the words "of" and "have", they're just (literally) making a noise that sounds similar to what they've heard others saying. Since all they're doing is aping a noise, how can that be "communication" when they've clearly not understood the meaning of the words they're using? (What really confuses me is why people I've known for decades, and know how to speak English, are now very distinctly saying "I could of done this" and even writing it. Have their brains completely turned to mush?)
* Of course changing the meaning of words can be equally confusing, especially when "bad" now means "good" for example. If my teenage grand-daughter comes in from a meal out and says "wow, that was really bad. I mean, really sick." then I will continue to suggest she writes a letter of complaint and asks for her money back. If what is communicated is simply wrong, then no, I will NOT get what they were after in their communication.
|
|
|
|
|
I assume you have got a problem with deviant grammar?
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
I never been proper.
People are paying one for it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Has and have are almost always the correct verbs, by themselves. Add to your list people saying "I've got." They would not say "I have got" so the contracted form is not correct either. The correct phrase is "I have" or "he has." The word "got" is used redundantly far more often than it is used correctly.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
reading a great discussion like this i get goosebumps, and, a rhythmic tingle in the tangle of neurons in Broca's area in the inferior frontal gyrus ...
as the song says, "Who could ask for anything more ?" Kate Smith: I Got Rhythm (with lyrics) - YouTube[^]
i propose that the appropriateness of semantic choices to express "possession or ownership" is culture and context bound ... for those who can be aware of the choices, and make conscious or intuitive decisions on which to use ... that is one thing ... for those who simply use what they are accustomed to, independent of context ... that is a very different thing.
in broad terms, i would say "get and got" are less formal than "have and had." But, "get" is more a verb.
excuse me while i go get lunch: today i think i'll have ... tuna salad.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Most people today are destroying the English language (at least in the States). There are no such words as "wanna" and "gonna" but these two atrocities appear in everything from news articles to web postings.
The proper lexicon is "want to" and "going to" but who cares anymore? As long as the point gets across.
People are no longer forced to use English correctly because it may hurt their feelings or something.
Its always about someone's feelings. What about simply growing up?
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
"Got a programming question is improper; Have a programming question is proper."
In formal English neither is correct, you're missing the subject. To be complete sentences they should be something like "I've got a programming question" or "I have a programming question," but that's a matter of interpretation because those sentence fragments are missing important info, which is the point.
In informal English though, it's common to drop implied bits when they are understood in context. So in informal speech, sentence fragments like that are fine, both of them. It's a form of informal abbreviation. Dropping the "have" in "I've got" to just "got" is a similar form of abbreviation.
Have/got are both fine if used correctly, but most go with "have" for reasons of style. "Have" is more common in formal English but "got" is not incorrect.
modified 20-Oct-22 14:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I got rabies. I have a lot of questions about rabies.
Typo - I meant babies.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 487 5/6
⬛🟨⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨🟩⬛
🟨⬛⬛🟩⬛
⬛⬛🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
