got a son

Cathy   Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:40 am GMT
I have just read "In 1919 he got a son" (Wikipedia) and now I'm wondering if that is correct English, because I learned that "to get a son/baby" is not correct ("to have a baby/son" would be correct).
JW   Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:35 pm GMT
"Get" in the sense of "beget" is old fashioned, but it is certainly good English.
Robin   Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:19 am GMT
Enter the real world

<<"In 1919 he got a son">>

Is incorrect

I know that in this world of test tube babies and celebrities like Madonna, it is prefectly possible to go shopping for exactly what you want. But generally speaking a son, or even a daughter is considered a Gift of God, and not something that you go out and 'get'.

In the Bible it may well take about 'x' begetting 'y', and how 'y' begot 'v' without going into too many details about how all this begetting took place.

However in the real world, begetting is a source on endless fascination, and it is normally refered to by a (French) word beginning with 'f'. There is also another word beginning with 's' that is sometimes used that Americans use to describe their carpets and rugs. As in

'x' f_______ 'y' and consequently got 'v'.


'x' s_______ 'y' and consequently got 'v'.

Occasionally it happens that when 'x' met 'y', 'y' was f_____ed up, and hence no use for getting 'v', as a 'b' would be produced instead. But of course we can't say that because it would be politically incorrect.
Mary   Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:12 pm GMT
That's interesting, because in America, we consider "shag" to be British slang (see the fourth entry for shag on
I am also wondering why you consider the word "fornicate" inappropriate. I can't picture that you mean "f--k," as this is not a French word.