Is "You've" Proper English?

[ZEE]

.

[Asher]

I've no patience for Alby's continued stupidity.

Oh, sorry.

I've got no patience for Alby's continued stupidity.

The more I think about it, the more I think inserting "got" in there is more awkward and abrupt...almost redneckish. Whenever "I have" is valid, "I've" should also be. Simple as that.

I suppose Alby doesn't think "I have a dog" is valid? Or is he special-casing the contraction for no real reason?

[Al B. Sure!]

http://theenglishspace.com/grammar/glossary/contractions/index.html

You can't use a contraction if 'have' is the main verb in the sentence.

[Hauldren Collider]

Y'all need to stop arguing about this crap.

[Asher]

http://theenglishspace.com/grammar/g...ons/index.html

Says who, and why not?

You are quoting "Megan Miln", an ESL teacher, as an authority on the English language?

To make matters worse, SHE IS NOT AMERICAN. She is Australian. It is absolutely correct in British English, which is what Australia uses. She is simply wrong.

[Al B. Sure!]

From "British or American English?: a handbook of word and grammar patterns":

Have occurs with somewhat similar frequency in the two national varieties. Although the LOB and Brown corpora (Hofland and Johansson 1982, 501) have about 1.16 times more tokens of have in British than in American, the larger CIC corpus has about 1.03 times more tokens of have in American. The uses of have seem, however, to be different in the two varieties. In a 500-item sample from CIC British corpus, 53 percent of the have forms are auxiliaries in function, 34 percent are main verbs, 11 percent are the semi-auxiliary have to, and 2 percent are indeterminate. In a similar sample from CIC American corpus, 42 percent are auxiliaries, 43 percent are main verbs, 14 percent are have to, and 1 percent are indeterminate. Among the reasons for the larger use of have as an auxiliary in British may be the stronger British preference for perfect verb forms over American simple preterits and the British preference for have got (in which have is an auxiliary) over American simple have (as a main verb). For the contraction ’ve, cf. § 1.2.2.1.2 above. have and have got British English has traditionally made a distinction between have and have got, using have for habitual or repeated events or states and have got for single events or states. Thus, They have appointments on Mondays, don’t they? versus They have got an appointment today, haven’t they? In the following citation, presumably the first clause is about a general situation (there is never a bin-end sale), and the second clause is about a present-time situation (the inexpensive wines are currently available): 1998 Jan. 3 Times Magazine 65/2. American does not make this distinction, giving rise to such jokes as this sup- posed conversation: an American to an English woman: “Do you have children?” English woman: “Not oftener than every nine months” (Andersen 1972, 857). The British distinction, however, seems no longer to be rigorously observed. British uses have/has got 2.7 times more frequently than American does and had got 9.7 times more frequently. British uses the contracted forms ’ve/’s got 1.8 times more frequently than American and ’d got 26.6 times more frequently. In both national varieties, as a main verb, have is far more frequent than have got, particularly in American. However also in both, the contracted form ’ve got is more frequent than simple ’ve as a main verb. A corpus-based study (LGSWE 216; also Johansson 1979, 206–7) of the three interrogative forms exemplified by Do you have any . . . , Have you any . . . , and Have you got any . . . shows American preference for the first of those options and British preference for the last two. In CIC, do you have any is overwhelmingly the most frequent option in American texts with comparatively few tokens of the other two options. In CIC British texts, do you have any and have you got any are of about equal frequency, and have you any occurs about three quarters as often as either of the other two options. In the preterit, both varieties strongly favor did you have? with only a few examples of had you got? in British and none in American. With negation, the favorite form in British is have no, which (at 621.8 iptmw) is more than twice as frequent as its closest British rival, don’t/doesn’t have. The latter is the favorite form in American (at 1495 iptmw), where it is more than twice as frequent as have no. A distant third in both varieties is haven’t/hasn’t got, which is 2.3 times more frequent in British (at 63.4 iptmw) than in American. An even more distant fourth is ’ve/’s not got, which is 77 times more frequent in British (at 23.2 iptmw) than in American. CIC has a few tokens of ’d not got in British texts and none in American. Fifth in line is have/has not got, which is 8 times more frequent in British (at 14.5 iptmw) than in American. The preterit had not got is even rarer, with 5.1 iptmw in British texts and none in American. Another corpus-based study (LGSWE 161) presents evidence that have no is used before indefinite objects, as in They have no idea, and that do not have is used in American before definite objects, as in They do not have the answer, but have not got in British, as in They have not got the answer. In the sense “must,” have/has to is overwhelmingly favored over have/has got to in common-core English. The latter option is, however, about a third more frequent in British than in American. And the contracted forms ’ve/’s got to are much more frequent in both varieties than the full form, especially in British. The contracted form ’ve to is rare in both varieties, but is more frequent in British.

[SlowwHand]

This is perhaps one of the most stupid threads that I've ever seen.

[Asher]

From "British or American English?: a handbook of word and grammar patterns":

TL;DR: It is valid.

[Asher]

This is perhaps one of the most stupid threads that I've ever seen.

This is perhaps one of the most stupid threads that I've got ever seen.

[Al B. Sure!]

This is perhaps one of the most stupid threads that I've ever seen.

Yes. Proper American usage of the contraction while have is an auxiliary verb qualifying the past participle 'seen'.

[Al B. Sure!]

This is perhaps the most stupid threads that I've got ever seen.

Do you know what an auxiliary verb is?

Clearly not and any legitimacy you had on this topic has just been thoroughly destroyed.

[Asher]

Do you know what an auxiliary verb is?

Do you know what mockery is?

Clearly not and any legitimacy you had on this topic has just been thoroughly destroyed.

You are so socially clueless, Alby...

[Al B. Sure!]

Do you know what mockery is?

Your mockery makes no ****ing sense when no one would put got there. Have is an auxiliary verb qualifying seen in Sloww's original post. Sloww's post was correct.

Got is placed only when the contraction is for have as a main verb expressing possession.

[Asher]

Your mockery makes no ****ing sense when no one would put got there. Have is an auxiliary verb qualifying seen in Sloww's original post. Sloww's post was correct.

You're nearly as dense as Ben.

Of course that sentence was incorrect. It was so incorrect it approached absurdity, wouldn't you say?

[giblets]

You are so socially clueless, Alby...

That explains why he's nothing better to do than get riled up over grammar...