Substitution of "have".

MollyB   Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:41 am GMT
Can we substitute "have" with "own" or "possess" here?

"I have letters to write."
Moses   Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:56 am GMT
I don't think so. It only makes sense with "have".
Amabo   Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:54 pm GMT
No.

Because "have" used in this context (obligation to do something) does not share a similar meaning to "own" or "possess" as it does in (for example):

I have a new car
Tyrone   Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:35 pm GMT
You can use "have got".

I've got letters to write.
Another Guest   Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:05 am GMT
<<I've got letters to write. >>

I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write?
Tyrone   Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:44 am GMT
<<I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write? >>

What do you mean you can't see how it can be 'defended'. It is a conversational variant which is very widespread. Maybe it is ungrammatical, I don't know, but if you want to master English you must accept it.
MollyB   Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:24 am GMT
<I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write? >

We're talking about (weakened) possession and obligation here. "Gotten" is another thing all together.


"Have and have got

The present tense form of have with got used for possession is more than twice as frequent in spoken BrE as in AmE:

 I’ve got one sister and one brother.
(BrE)
 I have a cousin who never married.
(AmE)"

The Cambridge Grammar of English.
svealander   Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:13 pm GMT
<<I don't see how that can be defended. Even if I were to accept "got" as an alternative to "gotten", how have you gotten letters to write?>>

it's just another form of "I have letters that I must write", with 'have' contracted, and 'must' replaced with 'got'.

I think you're mistaking it for something like "I've got letters that I've got to write" which would be someone at the office describing what's just turned up in their In-Tray, for example.
MollyB   Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:40 pm GMT
I think you're mistaking it for something like "I've got letters that I've got to write" which would be someone at the office describing what's just turned up in their In-Tray, for example.

No, no mistake.

"I've got letters that I've got to write" (The "have" expresses pure possession.)

"I've got letters to write." (The "have" can express both abstract possession and duty at the same time.)
svealander   Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:58 pm GMT
isn't that what i just said?
MolyB   Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:22 pm GMT
<isn't that what i just said? >

I seems so.
Samoht   Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:10 am GMT
No, try this sentence on for size

I _______ a dog to walk

have
own
possess


As you can see in an instance such as this, the only one word answer that makes sense is "have", although there are phrases that can replace "have", It is simply easier to write "have"

or we could reword everything and eliminate "have" entirely, you choose.
MollyB   Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:53 am GMT
<I _______ a dog to walk

have
own
possess


As you can see in an instance such as this, the only one word answer that makes sense is "have", although there are phrases that can replace "have", It is simply easier to write "have" >

Which shows that "have" has lost its meaning of pure possession.
Squee   Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:58 am GMT
There are a lot of ways "have" differs from words like "own" or "possess".

For instance, you can say "I have a sister.", but not "I own a sister." and you can say "I had lunch.", but not "I possessed lunch."

"Have" allows you to express abstract ownership, while the others express a more literal ownership.
Danni   Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:01 am GMT
<For instance, you can say "I have a sister.", but not "I own a sister." >

But you can say I possess.