That they did, most unnecessarily. [gw] is not foreign to English speakers.
Which is better, mugwort or mug-you-wort?
IANA linguistic anything. Just a typical native 'Murrican speaker who can usually tell a noun from a verb and can often identify the subject of a sentence.
I was thinking by analogy about how to butcher other syllables or words ending in “uar”. Which led to some challenge coming up with any.
Google says various Scrabble-like sites suggest anywhere from 5 to 39 such words in English. Other than “guar”, the seaweed derivitive used as a food additive, I’d never hear of any of the others.
Here’s one such list:
There is no dialect of English that is immune to inconsistency and it’s always easier to spot the inconsistencies of a foreign English dialect than of your own.
For example: the pronunciation of ‘solder’ in parts of the USA is ‘sodder’.
Q: Why is this inconsistent with the pronunciation of bolder, colder, folder, holder, older, polder?
A: because no dialect of English is immune to inconsistency. Sometimes the inconsistency is related to the origin of a loan word, sometimes it’s just there because that’s the way it is.
I see “leave it with me” in my email a lot, all written by me.
Typically I am saying it where someone is asking me for help in one of many areas where I’m a designated Subject Matter Expert, and the matter is not urgent, and it doesn’t make sense for he to tell them how to resolve it themselves. So I will get to it when I have time.
Never realized it was a Britishism.
Never understood that one myself. And then of course there’s ‘aluminum’, which is weird because just about every other metal in the periodic table is spelled ‘-ium’.
Oh well, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds… 
Hmmmmmm. Interesting. Your question, “Have you got a dog?”: is it asking:
A: Have you acquired a dog since I last checked?
B: Do you own a dog?
C: Is that furry thing on the other end of the leash you’re holding a dog?
D: (Something other than those)
—
My initial interpretation was, “Do you own a dog?”, in which case your question was poorly worded and the response (“Yes I do”) direct and charitable.
B.
Have you got a dog = do you have a dog,
but to me, it should go
Have you got a dog ? Yes i have.
Do you have a dog ? Yes i do.
Maybe it’s a UK thing, or maybe it’s just a pjd thing.
I can’t think of any other examples of this … anomaly.
I love the word “anomaly”.
I pronounce it saw-der.
That’s how I learned it.
The one that makes me scratch my head is colonel.
Yes, blame the English. The word is derived from Latin “solidus”, where the word “solid” comes from. Then it entered French as “souder”. The English took the French pronunciation and made the spelling closer to Latin. Then brought the word to the American colonies.
It’s now pronounced differently in the UK (the L is no longer silent) but in the US it’s pronounced how the English used to pronounce it.
Very similar to solder. The spelling is Latin/Italian (from columna/colonna respectively) and pronunciation is French (from coronel). I guess that used to be a thing for some English words? Pronounce it like the French but spell it more like Latin.
My pet theory is that the English hated the French so much that they changed the spelling as a “fuck you” or to hide the influence. “No, we didn’t get that word from the stinky French, it’s Latin! Look it up at the monastery!”
I’m fairly sure that for any weird inconsistency you find jarring, there’s a similar one in your own familiar dialect that you’re just oblivious to.
For example it always sounds weird to me when someone say their car ‘needs washed’ - I want to correct it to ‘needs to be washed’. It stands out as weird and wrong.
Meanwhile, it’s perfectly normal for me to say that my car ‘gets dirty’.
Yes !
Or “needs washing”
I wonder if that’s a Scottish thing (i knew a Scottish person who did that).
On the thing about the answer matching the question, I think that’s one of those things that people want to be a rule, but it just isn’t. Whilst ‘Have you got a dog ?’ / ‘Yes i have.’ is one that you might have noticed, it’s likely that you’re just oblivious to a great many cases where it doesn’t work like that, and everything is perfectly fine and where it is impossible in practice to make the answer match.
ISTM the “correct” matching answer should be
Q: Have you got a dog?
A: Yes, I have got a dog.
If the Q says “have got”, then the matching answer must also include “have got”. Or else they don’t actually match.
IMO a Q&A matching rule like that is just silly. As @Mangetout says, it’s certainly not a real feature of current English of whatever dialect. But if someone is going to propose such a rule, at least make it a complete rule, not a half-assed one.
YMMV of course.
Yeah, I mean the key requirement for an answer is that it should be useful in communicating a response (assuming the question isn’t rhetorical or something like that); consider:
Q: Do you have a dog?
A: I don’t even like dogs
A: I decided I would not get a dog after Fido died
A: I’m still wondering if I should
A: You can’t really keep a dog in a submarine
A: It wouldn’t be fair, what with the velociraptors and all
etc
Given that the answer to almost any question includes an array of possibilities that are not yes or no, the idea of matching verbs and tense is just a non starter.
Well, the “have got” is implied.
It would be the same, eg, in “have you seen star wars ?” “yes i have”; you don’t need
to say “yes i have seen star wars”
It’s only the “do you have”/“have you got” that i have a problem with. I can’t think
of any other form of question where there is any such an issue.
ETA: these might explain it better…
Note that the response includes only the relevant auxiliary: - “Do you have a pen”; “Yes, I do”. - “Have you got a pen”; “Yes, I have”.
I reckon the Irish would also phrase it this way:
Have you a pen?
Yoda: A pen, have you?
“Needs washed” type constructions tends to be a middle-American/Ohio/Pennsylvania white thing, but it has spread. Here’s a map:
I use the construction sometimes in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek manner, but it took me a long while to get used to it. I didn’t even come across it until I was in my 20s. (I’m from Chicago.)
ETA: At least in the US. I take this is a US expression, but if it’s not exclusively so, I’d be curious to hear where else it is used.
It’s very common in Scotland, to the extent that my father corrects me when (having spent c.17 years in England) I say “needs washing”.
Scots were unquestionably diasporic and I believe Pennsylvania and Ohio did not escape our attentions, so possibly but not necessarily related to @pullykamel’s map.
(My understanding of it is that to say something needs washing is insufficient. What it needs is to enter the state of already having been washed. We’re not interested in the process, just the end goal, compared to which “currently undergoing washing” is an equally unacceptable alternative.)
An interesting and sensible interpretation of something I always thought was simple overweening laziness when I first encountered it in the wild.
So “needs washing” and “needs to be washed” are both insufficient since they don’t indicate success (yet). It really “needs to have been washed”. Which then contracts to “needs washed”.
I’m still not a fan of the construction, but I’ll grudgingly give it less stink-eye now. Thanks for the edumacation.