Clearly regional.
::Singing:: Oh, I wish I was in the land of gotton…
See http://www.webster.com/wftw/01aug/081701.htm. the Merriam Webster site “Word for the Wise,” particularly the line, “These days, as for most of its history, ‘have got’ is considered standard.”
Of course, there are other sites and other sources that describe it as colloquial and/or non-standard. (But it’s not, I discover, in the past perfect tense. Obviously, with 20/20 hindsight.)
oh, p.s. – according to my antiquated Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th edition (1947 – also published by Merriam Webster, who clearly represent the descriptive rather than the pre- or proscriptive approach to language usage), “gotten” is defined as “past part. of GET.” No “coll.”, no “non-standard,” no usage notes.
It’s true that “have got” can seem redundant, but it can also have the particular meaning mentioned earlier of emphasis, as in " You have GOT to see this film!" It simply has a different inflection than " You MUST see this film" . Where is it written that there shall be only one way of expressing a thought? German is much more like that (one concept, one expression), but that’s what makes our wacko language such fun, and so descriptive.
I do find it odd that no one has mentioned the clearest distinction (to me) between “had got” and 'had gotten": To me it is clear that “we had got $10k” was at a specific time in the past, or from one source, whereas “we had gotten” would rather be interpreted as not necessarily at the same time ($3500 from the department, $1500 from alumni, $5000 from drug companies funding the lab). I’m a musician, and I can assure you that when scrambing for funding for a project it comes from many sources, and if I say that by November 15th we had gotten 80% of the funding for our orchestra extravaganza, it’s clear that it’s over time, and we’re still looking for more donors. If in your country the arts are all funded by the government this distinction may be moot, but here it’s alive and well (the concept, not the funding!).
Does anyone else hear this distinction?
I must also say that, on this (western) side of the pond, “have got” sounds perfectly reasonable (I’ve got ten dollars. Have you got a five?") You Brits don’t have to use it, but it’s not fair to call it “very improper, colloquial nonstandard idiom.” I mean, “Guinea” for the unit of currency plus ten percent?? Who’s got odd ideas about the use of language??
I would also point out that, pet peeves notwithstanding, English changes by use, and not by the pontification of those who feel that their use of the language is superior to that of others (as happens with the Academie Française, or Duden), whether that be Shakespeare, Noah Webster, or readers of The Straight Dope. (Then again, maybe we SHOULD have more say. . .)
SunSawed sez: (sorry, I just had to show you what a REAL colloquialism looks like): [The] distiction between “got” and “gotten” just reflects the American instinct to think the past participle of “get” is “gotten.”
If 280 million Americans do consider it an acceptable past participle of “get” in 2003, with what justification do you tell me that it’s wrong?? Because your mother told you so? Because you read it in a Grammar published in 1964?
Interesting discussion. One of my favorite (favourite?) books on the absurdities of English was written by a journalist rather than an academic, but that makes it fun. Bill Bryson: The Mother Tongue; English and How It Got That Way. Anyone who has made it this far on this thread will surely enjoy it.
joelcello
I call it a colloquialism because I wouldn’t use it in formal prose. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is how people talk; I don’t understand why SunSawed and foolsguinea think it is somehow pernicious or evil.
I don’t think anyone claimed that it is. At least I didn’t – I only said I prefer got as the part participle of get, because it sounds better. E.g., “I had just got my new car when there was a hailstorm.” You could say “gotten,” but I don’t think it would sound as good.
Besides, most talk about what’s “correct” and what’s not is nonsense; often it is simply a matter of preference.
Reading Sunsawed and others has given me solace and I can begin my recovery from fingernail on the blacboard cringes when-ever “I’ve got” or “I’ve gotten” is overheard … now alls I gotta do is like, um, you know, really-really get over it!
I thought I made my point clear with this statement:
If you can’t tell the difference between a simple present tense meaning (“have” as “possess”) and a reference to action in the past (“have got” meaning “recently received”), you aren’t paying attention. Perhaps you’ve been reading the Cucaracha thread. 
I’m not going to dive into the use of “have got” as a substitute for “must”, since such examples of poor English tend to drive me batty.
From Merriam-Webster:
From American Heritage:
From the 1913 Webster’s dictionary:
Interestingly, the last example calls gotten “obsolescent,” as did the 1864 dictionary mentioned in Cecil’s article.
H. W. Fowler’s 1926 A Dictionary of Modern English Usage is often regarded as the gold standard for British English. Fowler issued this pronunciamento on gotten:
A glance at Fowler often reminds us how little we know about British English, compared to what we think we know.
The American answer to Fowler was supposed to be Modern American Usage: A Guide by Wilson Follett (1966). Follett lumps in gotten along with proven and pled under the heading of “unsavory pasts.” To him, proven has a negative connotation because of “the famous verdict of the Scotch courts: not proven.” Well, this doesn’t say much for Follett’s grasp of usage! Not knowing, or not caring, that the Scots people feel the use of “Scotch” as a national adjective is offensive!
He goes on to pontificate:
Bah. Follet is at cross-purposes with himself. He starts by attacking gotten, and then winds up justifying its usefulness in American English via his examples.
I certainly feel no “disquiet” in the proper use of gotten in past constructions in American English, and I’m a professional linguist. I regard the American Heritage Dictionary as the most reliable reference for contemporary good usage. They employ a Usage Panel composed of about 100 folks who are well-versed in the living language and make their living in the use of English. Not just literati and lexicographers but also journalists, broadcasters, and science writers and whatnot. The Usage Panel is more broad-based and descriptionist than the diktats of a single prescriptionist.
The AHD simply validates gotten as a past participle of get and doesn’t even remark on it. (Although their contribution to clarifying this controversy would be welcome.) What we can tell from these cites, diachronically, is that American English usage of gotten has persisted over the years despite the futile efforts of prescriptionists like Follett to banish it, and is now generally accepted as perfectly good American English.
Has it come to that now? That’s amusing, considering the historical origin of the AHD and the Panel.
I’m going to try to tidy this up again. Firstly, abbreviating something doesn’t change the meaning: “I’ve a spoon” means the same as “I have a spoon” means the same as “I have got a spoon”. It’s just a quirk of modern English that we use the form with the redundancy.
I think for the case of describing the actual acquisition of the spoon, where the Americans would say “I have gotten a spoon” we Brits would say “I have got a spoon” but here the version without redundancy is “I got a spoon”.
And forty-some years ago, C. S. Lewis complained that Americans had destroyed, in his memory, the good old British distinction between:
I don’t have indigestion. (I am not a dyspeptic.) and
I haven’t got indigestion. (I am not suffering at this moment.)
Great! I find my corroboration in “over time” in Follett:
“. . . because gotten implies a progressive movement”
except I already panned the mythical 1964 Grammar, and find the above in his 1966 book on American usage.
Oh well . . .
joelcello
Ahhh! Finally someone says it. It is not “got” that is redundant but “have”.
No no no:
I possess a kettle (specific)
I have got a kettle (American or British)
I have a kettle (British alternative (and less common) form)
I have acquired a kettle (specific)
I have gotten a kettle (American)
I got a kettle (British and not particularly ambiguous)
Fair, point, I contradicted myself there, didn’t I?
You’ve summed it up I think, Mr Ray (assuming that’s your real name).
I might just re-iterate that abbreviating does not change the meaning so in all of the above “I have” could be replaced by “I’ve”, if you’re feeling really lazy and don’t care if it doesn’t scan…
Have changes the tense from past to present perfect. “Have got/gotten” is different from “got” just as “have run” is different from “ran.” E.g.:
I ran for president once. (past)
I have run for president before. (present perfect)
I got a letter from the president once. (past)
I have got a letter from the president before. (present perfect)
In the last example, of course, the awkwardness is attributable to the use of the word got instead of received; some would circumvent it by using gotten, but to me that sounds silly and somewhat uneducated.
Actually, on further thought, the awkwardness probably comes from the improbability of anyone using the present perfect at all to describe such an event.
So, for a better example:
I got my groceries at Albertson’s once. (past)
I have got my groceries at Albertson’s before. (present perfect)
Further, if the event happened not once but several times, the importance of have becomes even clearer:
I got my groceries at Albertson’s several times. (This implies some condition that no longer exists, and therefore that you no longer do so.)
I have got my groceries at Albertson’s several times. (This implies that you may continue to do so.)
The thing is, part of this debate is about “have got” NOT as present perfect but (as RKTS’s citation from Merriam Webster specified) as “present perfect with present meaning” – that is, about its use as present tense: “I’ve got a headache.”
This doesn’t (usually) mean “I obtained a headache in the past and am still in possession of it,” it means “right now my head hurts.”
(I’m sure you can relate.)
SteveJonesUK points out, "for the case of describing the actual acquisition of the spoon, where the Americans would say “I have gotten a spoon” we Brits would say “I have got a spoon” but here the version without redundancy is “I got a spoon.” "
The thing is, now we’re declining “get,” instead of “have.” So “got” is fine here – whereas if you use it as a synonym for “have,” it’s colloquial and non-standard. (“I got a spoon,” meaning “I went and got a spoon,” as opposed to “Do you have a spoon?” “Yup, I got a spoon.”)
Meanwhile, DSYoungEsq makes a distinction between
(quote) (how do you do those classy quote thingies?)
If you can’t tell the difference between a simple present tense meaning (“have” as “possess”) and a reference to action in the past (“have got” meaning “recently received”), you aren’t paying attention.
(close quote)
– but this is the same point I’m talking about, that “have got” can be the present perfect form of “get,” referring to events in the past (“I get, I got, I have got” – though I’d use “have gotten,” presumably because I am a Former Colonial – both “got” and “gotten” are listed as “past part. of GET” in my dictionary)…
OR, it can be an alternative present (i.e., present perfect used as present, according to Merriam Webster and American Heritage) of “have.” In which case there is no NECESSARY difference between “I have” and “I’ve got” that I can see – they’re both about the present. In this usage, neither one is about when you obtained anything.
I’m afraid I don’t see much of a debate going here, with the exception of DSYoungEsq’s contention that “have got” does not mean “have,” which I cited the dictionaries to disprove.
But yes, everything you said is correct.
I assumed the other posters were referring to the present perfect in saying the redundancy is “have” because I didn’t think anyone would assume that the past tense “got” and the present tense “have got” can mean the same thing. But maybe they did.
There are three ways: you can click “quote” in the bottom-right of any post, which puts the entire post in a quote; you can click the “Quote” button above the space for typing your reply; or you can enter the code manually. To do the last, you enter QUOTE in brackets () to open the quote, and /QUOTE in brackets to close it.
Then how would you say “ill-gotten gains”? 