Maybe it has to do with some difference between the aorist versus the past perfect? “My mom has died” implies it has continuing stative relevance compared to “my mom died”.
I’m sure American English has been influenced by German, Dutch and Yiddish in recent centuries in ways that British English hasn’t. When Jerry Seinfeld says “Just do it already”, that use of “already” would have been completely unheard of in British English at the time, but I knew north Europeans who would use it that way when speaking English in Britain in the 90s.
OTOH, the Two Ronnies were poking fun at that usage for a British audience as early as the 1970s, in their “Insurance Against Becoming Jewish” sketch:
You’re suggesting I’m already Jewish!…You’re suggesting I’m Jewish already!
It seems to me that you’re bascially restating @JKellyMap’s point, but it’s an interpretation that makes sense.
However, I’m not sure at all about the whole ownership digression, especially since the grammaticalization process that led to “have” becoming an auxiliary implies that it was not the first stage of development in the languages considered. So, it doesnt seem to be coherent with the idea that ownership was one the first concepts that appeared in human evolution.
No wonder.
As, I wrote above, it has all but disappeared from every day usage and its conjugation is tricky. You’ll find it in a lot of literary texts, though, including some fairly recent ones.
The Romance auxiliary word is rooted in a Proto-Indo-European word that meant “to seize” or “take” (its other Latin descendant gave us “capture”.)
The Germanic auxiliary word is unrelated (despite coincidental similarity); it is rooted in a Proto-Indo-European word that did indeed also mean “to have, own, possess,” and meant this before the OP’s construction developed.
In any case, even the Latin one meant “to have” (which is semantically similar to “seize”) by the time its use as an auxiliary in this way was happening.
(You may have a point about the Latin future tense I mentioned, though — possibly the ancestor of “habere” still retained some of the “seize” sense when that grammaticalization was happening, earlier than other one).
Hmmm…Let me think about those in Portuguese…
Joguei a bola - perfectly normal usage
Tenho jogado a bola - not so common
Tinha jogado a bola - pretty common
Tive jogado a bola - sounds weird. never heard it in the wild
Perhaps “to throw the ball” isn’t fitting for some of these though. For example, using the same verb jogar, the phrase tenho jogado recentemente (I have played [some sport] recently) would not sound weird at all.
The hube tirado tense hasn’t been in everyday use for a very long time (100 years or more, I think). Googling “hube + (other verb participles)” turns up page after page of grammar-related websites, not examples of actual usage.
Wikipedia has a Spanish-language entry on this tense:
El pretérito anterior ha caído en desuso en español coloquial, y ha sido reemplazado en todos los registros salvo los más formales por otra forma verbal como el pretérito pluscuamperfecto, el pretérito perfecto simple o indefinido, o incluso el infinitivo.
I remember seeing it in textbooks, so I won’t argue that it hasn’t come up in classrooms in the last 100 years. The quoted Wikipedia entry states, “…has fallen into disuse in all but the most formal of registers,” so you might see it (in writing) in legal documents or something, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across it. The había tirado tense is what’s used, and the Wikipedia entry shows other ways to say the same thing.
My bolding. The verb is amar, so it should be amará.
This is as good a example of what I wanted to say. The main point is that in normal English, the simple past is the perfect tense and the compound past is the imperfect. “I bought …” means I did it some time in the past and it is a completed action. “I have bought…” really means I just did it and might be still shopping. I don’t know enough German to know if that is true there. French has an imperfect tense (which really has an imperfective meaning), a simple past (which is really perfective, although as noted has become rare) and a compound past which seems to me to be in the middle of the perfect/imperfect aspect. Of course there is a pluperfect in both languages using the past of have/avoir as auxiliaries. English also has the so-called progressive forms which seem to be aggressively imperfect.
Well, that’s going on my business card
Note that “literary” here includes pulp fiction:
Il y eut un silence. Maigret était si grave que Pardon parla le premier.
I have the impression that it serves to narrate a sequence of completed events.
Similarly in several, perhaps most Germanic languages other than English. In German the simple past is used considerably less than in English, at least in everyday conversation. And in Afrikaans the simple past has almost completely disappeared.
Yes, I feel this is correct.
Texts (I used “literary” in a broad sense, indeed) that use it have this sort of picturesque storytelling quality, whereas the much more usual passé composé feels more matter-of-fact to me.
Il y eut un silence. Maigret était si grave que Pardon parla le premier.
Il y a eu un silence. Maigret était si grave que Pardon a parlé premier.
The subjunctive form (plus past participle) is still used, though, as in a lovely folk song by the Mexican alt-rock band Cafe Tacuba:
“No me hubieras dejado esa noche.”
“You wouldn’t have left me that night.”
I wanted to pick up on this. Why comedic? Because it sounds archaic, or something else?
Of course it is. I never said it wasn’t.
Sorry — I didn’t mean to sound like I was I questioning anything you said — just augmenting/clarifying.
Not sure if I consider Maigret pulp fiction…
I’ve also seen “fut” in the French wikipedia.
Thanks for saying that. Sorry if I seemed gruff. 
It’s all good! 
It sounds archaic and quaint, indeed. Plus it’s not unlikely that even native speakers will make mistakes trying to use it.