Present Perfect or Past Simple ???

[Gość: Maciek]

Czy zdanie "What time did you get to work this morning?" jest poprawne czy
powinno byc "What time have you got to work this morning?"

[Gość: bea]

Gość portalu: Maciek napisał(a):

> Czy zdanie "What time did you get to work this morning?" jest poprawne czy
> powinno byc "What time have you got to work this morning?"

To zalezy od kontekstu. Pierwsze oznacza, ze teraz jest juz popoludnie tego
samego dnia. Drugie, ze wciaz jest ranek.

[Gość: iza]

drugie jest poprawne bo this morning oznacza że dzien się nie skończył a w
takim wypadku używa się present perfect

[Gość: Aga]

moze jest poprawne teoretycznie, ale raczej male sa szanse uslyszenia tej formy
w mowie potocznej. wiekszac uzywa formy Past Simple. no ale czyms w szkole
musza meczyc.
Gość portalu: iza napisał(a):

> drugie jest poprawne bo this morning oznacza że dzien się nie skończył a w
> takim wypadku używa się present perfect

[Gość: dd]

dokladnie

[Gość: sisi]

Past Simple is the correct choice.
Whenever you ask for time at which something happened in the past, use the Past
Simple (when...?, what time...?). "This morning" seems to point to the Perfect,
but the definite time rule is stronger. To be on the safe side, try "in the
morning" instead.

[pul_mruffki]

approved

[charissa]

na moj glupi rozum past simple!!!

[Gość: Szybki]

Just a thought: "What time have you arrived at work this morning"?

[Gość: sisi]

Gość portalu: Szybki napisał:

> Just a thought: "What time have you arrived at work this morning"?
What is that? Paraphrasing?
'To arrive' is not typically spoken when you mean `to get' or 'to come'
somewhere.
If you mean the contradiction of 'What time' (for the Past) and 'this morning'
(for the Present, if it is still this morning, see above.

[Gość: nat]

What time did you get up this morning? (chances are the question is being asked
later in the day)
What time have you arrived at work this morning. (presuming you are still there)

[awalk]

Gość portalu: nat napisał(a):

> What time did you get up this morning? (chances are the question is being
asked
>
> later in the day)
> What time have you arrived at work this morning. (presuming you are still
there
> )

I arrived at 6 am. Now, look at this answer and think about the correct tense
for the question.

Hope it helps.

[gelatik_]

Gość portalu: Szybki napisał(a):

> Just a thought: "What time have you arrived at work this morning"?


ok too!

[Gość: Kingfish]

Gość portalu: Maciek napisał(a):

> Czy zdanie "What time did you get to work this morning?"




YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!










jest poprawne czy
> powinno byc "What time have you got to work this morning?"

NO:-(((((((

[Gość: Bert]

If your "when" is supposed to mean "what time was it
when..." substitute it for "when":

What time was it when you got to/arrived at work this
morning?

Now you have a time adverbial clause that calls for the
simple past tense – if the time of arrival is crucial for
you, the present perfect tense would be out of place.

It doesn't matter whether you ask the question before the
morning is over or after 12 noon as long as the time
adverbial "this morning" refers to the time that is, at
least partly, past. You don't need a wristwatch to say it.

[greatwhite]

Gość portalu: Maciek napisał(a):

> Czy zdanie "What time did you get to work this morning?"
jest poprawne czy
> powinno byc "What time have you got to work this morning?"

First one is correct and in 99 times out of 100 it would be used.

2nd should look like this: What time have you gotten to work. But no one would
ever say it!

[Gość: Bert]

ɮnd should look like this: What time have you gotten to
>work. But no one would ever say it!
I sure hope so.

You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
got and gotten. To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
"have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
the substitution, the original question would read "What
time must you work (this morning)?"
I think you are in hot water now...

____________Not so Bert

[greatwhite]

Gość portalu: Bert napisał(a):

>
> ɮnd should look like this: What time have you gotten to
> >work. But no one would ever say it!
> I sure hope so.
>
> You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
> got and gotten. To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
> the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
> "have got(ten) to work" means "must work"


Not so!
I have gotten to work is not even in english! To say must work you would say
I've got to work.

“Although both gotten and get are accepted past participles for most senses of
the verb get, gotten has the prevailing form in the US in all speeches and
writing, especially for the sense of receiving, becoming or arriving. The
gradual acceptance of gotten over the past 40 years or so has probably been
facilitated by the desire to distinguish between possession as in the informal
I HAVE GOT A CAR, and acquisition as in I HAVE GOTTEN A CAR. These forms are
not commonly used in the most other English-speaking countries where the
standard form for possession is HAVE A CAR and the standard past participle is
Gotten. For instance, in Britain, I’VE GOT A CAR means I have acquired a car.”

The above I copied from the Webster New World College Dictionary,3rd edition.

Have gotten means acquisition and have got possession. If you are asking what
time I arrived at work you are asking me what time did I acquire the position
and not possession.

So as you can see gotten is not even used in England but in US it would be a
more preferred word in this context. However, as I said before to ask this
question one would simply say, WHAT TIME DID YOU GET TO WORK:-)







so that, after
> the substitution, the original question would read "What
> time must you work (this morning)?"
> I think you are in hot water now...


Still not confused and in cool water
Yours Truly

[greatwhite]

greatwhite napisała:

> Gość portalu: Bert napisał(a):
>
> >
> > ɮnd should look like this: What time have you gotten to
> > >work. But no one would ever say it!
> > I sure hope so.
> >
> > You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
> > got and gotten. To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
> > the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
> > "have got(ten) to work" means "must work"
>
>
> Not so!
> I have gotten to work is not even in english!


Not in english if you were looking to say "I must work"
I have gotten to work in US means I arrived at work.


To say must work you would say
> I've got to work.
>
> “Although both gotten and get are accepted past participles for most sens
> es of
> the verb get, gotten has the prevailing form in the US in all speeches and
> writing, especially for the sense of receiving, becoming or arriving. The
> gradual acceptance of gotten over the past 40 years or so has probably been
> facilitated by the desire to distinguish between possession as in the
informal
> I HAVE GOT A CAR, and acquisition as in I HAVE GOTTEN A CAR. These forms are
> not commonly used in the most other English-speaking countries where the
> standard form for possession is HAVE A CAR and the standard past participle
is
> Gotten. For instance, in Britain, I’VE GOT A CAR means I have acquired a
> car.”
>
> The above I copied from the Webster New World College Dictionary,3rd edition.
>
> Have gotten means acquisition and have got possession. If you are asking what
> time I arrived at work you are asking me what time did I acquire the position
> and not possession.
>
> So as you can see gotten is not even used in England but in US it would be a
> more preferred word in this context. However, as I said before to ask this
> question one would simply say, WHAT TIME DID YOU GET TO WORK:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> so that, after
> > the substitution, the original question would read "What
> > time must you work (this morning)?"
> > I think you are in hot water now...
>
>
> Still not confused and in cool water
> Yours Truly

AGREE

[gelatik_]

I agree there is a definite difference in american english between Got and
gotten!



greatwhite napisała:

> Gość portalu: Bert napisał(a):
>
> >
> > ɮnd should look like this: What time have you gotten to
> > >work. But no one would ever say it!
> > I sure hope so.
> >
> > You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
> > got and gotten. To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
> > the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
> > "have got(ten) to work" means "must work"
>
>
> Not so!
> I have gotten to work is not even in english! To say must work you would say
> I've got to work.
>
> “Although both gotten and get are accepted past participles for most sens
> es of
> the verb get, gotten has the prevailing form in the US in all speeches and
> writing, especially for the sense of receiving, becoming or arriving. The
> gradual acceptance of gotten over the past 40 years or so has probably been
> facilitated by the desire to distinguish between possession as in the
informal
> I HAVE GOT A CAR, and acquisition as in I HAVE GOTTEN A CAR. These forms are
> not commonly used in the most other English-speaking countries where the
> standard form for possession is HAVE A CAR and the standard past participle
is
> Gotten. For instance, in Britain, I’VE GOT A CAR means I have acquired a
> car.”
>
> The above I copied from the Webster New World College Dictionary,3rd edition.
>
> Have gotten means acquisition and have got possession. If you are asking what
> time I arrived at work you are asking me what time did I acquire the position
> and not possession.
>
> So as you can see gotten is not even used in England but in US it would be a
> more preferred word in this context. However, as I said before to ask this
> question one would simply say, WHAT TIME DID YOU GET TO WORK:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> so that, after
> > the substitution, the original question would read "What
> > time must you work (this morning)?"
> > I think you are in hot water now...
>
>
> Still not confused and in cool water
> Yours Truly

[Gość: nat]

Nobody in their right mind would use 'gotten' outside USA - very poor option
for ill educated individuals. I'VE GOT TO say it here because it does indeed
drive me mad each time I hear it.

what is not so?

[Gość: Bert]

In my humble opinion both "have got to" and "have gotten
to" are ugly - so much for the beauty of the twins. It
makes me wonder though why some managed to legalize "have
got to" while opposing the other?
Don't they realize that "got" shouldn't be there? The
infinitive (unconjugated verb, Anglos!) is "to have".
Spoken intelligently, the phrase would be "I have to say
it". Even worse, sometimes "have" is just dropped: "I got
to say it". In this case, it seems the speaker considers
"got" to be a synonym of have – the Brits are as guilty
of it as the Yanks.
Have it, you uneducated stiff-lipped Red Coats!
That's just to balance the account; a preamble addressed
to whoever suffers from the linguistic superiority complex.

To the sinking shark:
In my previous post I took the liberty of playing a trick
on you. The second substitution was absolutely illegal
(unlike the first). You didn't notice that, I assume,
because you didn't protest. I distorted not only the
meaning of the original question but also its tense.
"Must" is present, and "have got(ten) to", despite its
morphological present perfect form, refers to the present
(it means "have to") – a cheap trick to show you that
unfair modifications in a situation like this can lead to
the point of absurdity. Your disposing of "this morning"
and replacing "got" with "gotten" (to accomplish what?
here got, gotten mean arrived) contributed nothing but
potential confusion. To make things worse "What time have
you gotten to work" is a logical and grammatical flub,
with or without "this morning", ten times out of ten.
Back to the shallows; it's wading time.

[Gość: salmotrutta]

...what can i say?...balls...bollocks...and balderdash...

[Gość: nat]

Absolutely, utter rubbish.

To Bert from Bosto, if I may?

[Gość: Czytelnik z NJ]

You remind me of a skill politician who when asked unconvertible question talks
for five minutes with out saying much and with out answering the question.

In his original post, Greatwhite, clearly stated that the first sentence was
his choice and he corrected the 2nd with a word gotten instead of got.

In your response you stated:

"You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
got and gotten"

And you went on with the most ridicules example/explanation:

"To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
"have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
the substitution, the original question would read "What
time must you work (this morning)?"
I think you are in hot water now..."

This was to confused us/him but he shut you down with the 2nd sentence of his
next post:

"Not so!
To say must work you would say I've got to work."

In this post, Greatwhite, also proved that there is a difference between the
word Got and Gotten and that the word gotten is the correct word in the 2nd
sentence.
Whether you like it or not the word gotten exists in Websters dictionary which
clearly distinguishes between Got and Gotten.

So how did you respond to his post in which he clearly, quoting Webster
Disctinary, proved you wrong?

You completely ignored the fact that he answer your claim of "You are in deep
water drawing a fishy distinction between got and gotten." , and like a skill
politician you changed the subject:
"In my humble opinion both "have got to" and "have gotten to" are ugly - so
much for the beauty of the twins. It makes me wonder though why some managed to
legalize "have got to" while opposing the other?
Don't they realize that "got" shouldn't be there? "

What a turn around! First you decided to defend "Got" over "Gotten" but as soon
as you lost the argument you switched to disliking GOT and GOTTEN.
I would only like to ad that who cares what you like in the discussion over
grammar? Go to any dictionary and you will find Have Got and Have gotten
whether you like it or not.

As to the note to "Sinking Shark" your "chip tricks" confused only Bert who
some how doesn't even remember the original objection he had to Greatwhites
post. I remind you that Greatwhite himself did not like the 2nd sentence so
why bring it up only after you lost on the GOT vs Gotten. Your original
response objected only to drawing a distinction between GOT and Gotten and I
could swear that this was the subject of your discussion.
You wrote: "Your disposing of "this morning" and replacing "got" with "gotten"
(to accomplish what?here got, gotten mean arrived) contributed nothing but
potential confusion. "

To accomplish What????? To respond to your statement in which you wrote: "You
are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between got and gotten"

I think he responded very well ,and unlike you, on subject!

You have a unique gift my friend. You talk alot with out saying much of
anything. Your are also very good in timely switching of a subject when your
opponent has your back against the wall.

So despite your arrogance, or maybe because of it, and attempts to attack a
person and not his ideas you lost the argument. Unless you measure victory in
number of meaningless words used in the discussion.

Pozdr
Czytelnik

Quality over quantity!

[kingfish]

You are right Czytelniku. Quality over quantity!
Greatwhite 1 : Bert not even in the race.

You certainly may

[Gość: Bert]

OK, lets clarify things.
As per my first post:
Just to remind you the dilemma was about the tense
selection – simple past vs. present perfect.
"What time did you get to (meaning arrive at) work this
morning" is the proper grammar in response to the
original question. Not in 90% of cases, but always. What
should we do about the missing 10%? Accept exceptions
without naming them?
I hope we agree.

Great White proposed the alternative: "What time have you
gotten to work?" by dropping "this morning" and replacing
"got" with "gotten". Apparently, the two changes were to
cure the problem. Too bad. The two past participles,
"got" and "gotten" can replace the past participle
"arrived". Drawing a distinction between them when they
are used instead of the past participle "arrived" (that
is, when both mean "arrived") is fishy. There is no
difference between them in this context. This
substitution is no change at all. I hope we agree again.
In addition to that, omitting "this morning" in the
proposed version changes the original question as far as
the possible confusion of the finished vs.unfinished use
of the present perfect tense goes. It is an important
point not to be missed. If you like, just go back to the
earlier posts and see for yourself.

In my second post I played the trick that I described
before. I corrupted Great White's version: not only the
meaning but also the tense – I changed the tense to the
present tense by gluing together GW's "have got(ten) to"
(which, in GW's alternative is present perfect) and
replacing it with present "must". (I can assure you, have
gotten to + infinitive can mean must, even if the
PHRASE's default meaning may suggest permission – context
decides that). The cooked version is an example of what
GW's alternative might mean – just to show the absurdity
of the alleged cure by GW. Needless to say, the
alternative of GW is no alternative at all to the
original question.

One more point. It wasn't me who introduced the
controversial "have gotten to". I did the mere
manipulation of the brat, and I still don't like the guy.

PS1. The verb "get" in "get to+infinitive" and in "have
got to + infinitive" and in "have gotten to +
infinitive" is a so-called undefined verb meaning of
which is dependent on the sentence(s) or context or both.
If you want to learn more about it, study. I wish you
success.

PS2. Never have had, never will have any political
ambitions. As for my alleged arrogance – well, that's
your opinion.
Another lengthy post, right? I thik yours was longer,
but, no worries, it will not happen again.

[Gość: Czytelnik]

Gość portalu: Bert napisał(a):

> OK, lets clarify things.
> As per my first post:
> Just to remind you the dilemma was about the tense
> selection – simple past vs. present perfect.
> "What time did you get to (meaning arrive at) work this
> morning" is the proper grammar in response to the
> original question. Not in 90% of cases, but always. What
> should we do about the missing 10%? Accept exceptions
> without naming them?
> I hope we agree.

No I don't agree.
Your post which was in response to GW's post completely changed the subject of
discussion between you two from, which sentence is correct, to, is gotten a
better choice for the 2nd sentence or not. If you have any question about it
read your post again:

"You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
got and gotten. To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
"have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
the substitution, the original question would read "What
time must you work (this morning)?"
I think you are in hot water now..."


Do you see anything about anything else beside Got vs Gotten controversy? NO!
So why do you expect response to something else?

Not only you changed the subject but you were completely wrong when it comes to
Got vs Gotten and absence of distinction between them. I think GW clearly
showed that there is a difference, at least in American English which he
clearly indicated:

“Although both gotten and get are accepted past participles for most senses of
the verb get, gotten has the prevailing form in the US in all speeches and
writing, especially for the sense of receiving, becoming or arriving. The
gradual acceptance of gotten over the past 40 years or so has probably been
facilitated by the desire to distinguish between possession as in the informal
I HAVE GOT A CAR, and acquisition as in I HAVE GOTTEN A CAR. These forms are
not commonly used in the most other English-speaking countries where the
standard form for possession is HAVE A CAR and the standard past participle is
Gotten. For instance, in Britain, I’VE GOT A CAR means I have acquired a car.”

The above I copied from the Webster New World College Dictionary,3rd edition.

Have gotten means acquisition and have got possession. If you are asking what
time I arrived at work you are asking me what time did I acquire the position
and not possession. "







>
> Great White proposed the alternative: "What time have you
> gotten to work?" by dropping "this morning" and replacing
> "got" with "gotten". Apparently, the two changes were to
> cure the problem. Too bad. The two past participles,
> "got" and "gotten" can replace the past participle
> "arrived". Drawing a distinction between them when they
> are used instead of the past participle "arrived" (that
> is, when both mean "arrived") is fishy.




No you didn't say that. What you said and therefore changed the subject was:

"You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
got and gotten. To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
"have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
the substitution, the original question would read "What
time must you work (this morning)?"
I think you are in hot water now..."


You didn't say that you were questioning whether or not got and gotten can't
substitute the past participle arrive.
Don't you agree? So why do you say you did?
The only logical response to your post was to prove to you that there was a
difference between got and gotten, which I will say again GW did a very good
job on.

This discussion reminds me of two people arguing about which ice-cream tastes
more like strawberry, vanilla or strawberry flavor. You are the guy who takes
the side of vanilla. However proven wrong you take the position that you don't
like ice-cream anyway.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time on something so ridiculous but I
guess it is not the subject but your arrogance that "got" to me.

pzdr
Over and OUT!









There is no
> difference between them in this context. This
> substitution is no change at all. I hope we agree again.
> In addition to that, omitting "this morning" in the
> proposed version changes the original question as far as
> the possible confusion of the finished vs.unfinished use
> of the present perfect tense goes. It is an important
> point not to be missed. If you like, just go back to the
> earlier posts and see for yourself.
>
> In my second post I played the trick that I described
> before. I corrupted Great White's version: not only the
> meaning but also the tense – I changed the tense to the
> present tense by gluing together GW's "have got(ten) to"
> (which, in GW's alternative is present perfect) and
> replacing it with present "must". (I can assure you, have
> gotten to + infinitive can mean must, even if the
> PHRASE's default meaning may suggest permission – context
> decides that). The cooked version is an example of what
> GW's alternative might mean – just to show the absurdity
> of the alleged cure by GW. Needless to say, the
> alternative of GW is no alternative at all to the
> original question.
>
> One more point. It wasn't me who introduced the
> controversial "have gotten to". I did the mere
> manipulation of the brat, and I still don't like the guy.
>
> PS1. The verb "get" in "get to+infinitive" and in "have
> got to + infinitive" and in "have gotten to +
> infinitive" is a so-called undefined verb meaning of
> which is dependent on the sentence(s) or context or both.
> If you want to learn more about it, study. I wish you
> success.
>
> PS2. Never have had, never will have any political
> ambitions. As for my alleged arrogance – well, that's
> your opinion.
> Another lengthy post, right? I thik yours was longer,
> but, no worries, it will not happen again.

Getting spank in public. Love to see it!

[tyrannosaurus.rex]

Good Job Czytelniu. I love to se a pompous ass like Bert getting spanked in
public.
And what is there to be pompous over? English?

[Gość: Bert]

What does it mean?

A piece of a quote from today's daily Metro:

"...the board was against [the layoff] but[...]. They
laid off half of my people and the work load didn't
change[...]. Everybody has gotten to work long hours now
and everybody hates it."
(Despite everybody's efforts, they work long hours =
external obligation)


The following is my own, compare:
I did everything I could to work overtime because I
needed the money – now I have gotten to work long hours
but I am happy.
(Because of my efforts I work a lot = permission)

The rest doesn't deserve a response.

[greatwhite]

Your examples are very poor again and prove nothing. First is a quote, and who
knows if the quoted person even speaks English, and the 2nd one is yet another
cooked up by you sentence. External obligation and permission??? What are you
trying to say? And this contributes something to the argument over differences
between have got and have gotten? This tells me there is no difference between
got and gotten?

So I will quote again the dictionary and ask you to read it carefully because
Webster Dictionary clearly separates Got and Gotten in English America language:

“Although both gotten and get are accepted past participles for most senses of
the verb get, gotten has the prevailing form in the US in all speeches and
writing, especially for the sense of receiving, becoming or arriving. The
gradual acceptance of gotten over the past 40 years or so has probably been
facilitated by the desire to distinguish between possession as in the informal
I HAVE GOT A CAR, and acquisition as in I HAVE GOTTEN A CAR. These forms are
not commonly used in the most other English-speaking countries where the
standard form for possession is HAVE A CAR and the standard past participle is
Gotten. For instance, in Britain, I’VE GOT A CAR means I have acquired a car.”

The above I copied from the Webster New World College Dictionary,3rd edition.

Have gotten means acquisition and have got possession.
I don't think this concept is so hard to understand. Is it?

I don't like the use of the have got and have gotten however, it is an
accepted part of the American English and there is a distinct difference
between the two, unless you tell me Bert knows English better then people who
put together Webster Dictionary.

So stop being a sore looser and admit that your "fishy" comment was wrong and
you stand corrected. It will not kill you, I promise!

WOW! THANKS!

[greatwhite]

WOW! Thank You!

After reading Bert's "shift on the fly" I wasn't looking forward to responding.
Thanks to you I don't have to.
I even went back to his first comment to see if maybe it was I who
misunderstood something. I am glad to see I didn't.

Thanks again!

NOW I've got to get to work. NOT: HAVE gotten:-)




Gość portalu: Czytelnik z NJ napisał(a):

> You remind me of a skill politician who when asked unconvertible question
talks
>
> for five minutes with out saying much and with out answering the question.
>
> In his original post, Greatwhite, clearly stated that the first sentence
was
> his choice and he corrected the 2nd with a word gotten instead of got.
>
> In your response you stated:
>
> "You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
> got and gotten"
>
> And you went on with the most ridicules example/explanation:
>
> "To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
> the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
> "have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
> the substitution, the original question would read "What
> time must you work (this morning)?"
> I think you are in hot water now..."
>
> This was to confused us/him but he shut you down with the 2nd sentence of
his
>
> next post:
>
> "Not so!
> To say must work you would say I've got to work."
>
> In this post, Greatwhite, also proved that there is a difference between the
> word Got and Gotten and that the word gotten is the correct word in the 2nd
> sentence.
> Whether you like it or not the word gotten exists in Websters dictionary
which
>
> clearly distinguishes between Got and Gotten.
>
> So how did you respond to his post in which he clearly, quoting Webster
> Disctinary, proved you wrong?
>
> You completely ignored the fact that he answer your claim of "You are in deep
> water drawing a fishy distinction between got and gotten." , and like a skill
> politician you changed the subject:
> "In my humble opinion both "have got to" and "have gotten to" are ugly - so
> much for the beauty of the twins. It makes me wonder though why some managed
to
>
> legalize "have got to" while opposing the other?
> Don't they realize that "got" shouldn't be there? "
>
> What a turn around! First you decided to defend "Got" over "Gotten" but as
soon
>
> as you lost the argument you switched to disliking GOT and GOTTEN.
> I would only like to ad that who cares what you like in the discussion over
> grammar? Go to any dictionary and you will find Have Got and Have gotten
> whether you like it or not.
>
> As to the note to "Sinking Shark" your "chip tricks" confused only Bert who
> some how doesn't even remember the original objection he had to Greatwhites
> post. I remind you that Greatwhite himself did not like the 2nd sentence so
> why bring it up only after you lost on the GOT vs Gotten. Your original
> response objected only to drawing a distinction between GOT and Gotten and I
> could swear that this was the subject of your discussion.
> You wrote: "Your disposing of "this morning" and replacing "got"
with "gotten"
> (to accomplish what?here got, gotten mean arrived) contributed nothing but
> potential confusion. "
>
> To accomplish What????? To respond to your statement in which you wrote: "You
> are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between got and gotten"
>
> I think he responded very well ,and unlike you, on subject!
>
> You have a unique gift my friend. You talk alot with out saying much of
> anything. Your are also very good in timely switching of a subject when your
> opponent has your back against the wall.
>
> So despite your arrogance, or maybe because of it, and attempts to attack a
> person and not his ideas you lost the argument. Unless you measure victory in
> number of meaningless words used in the discussion.
>
> Pozdr
> Czytelnik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Forgive my polish: Trafiony zatopiony_______!

[gelatik_]

You took the words out of my mouth.
You weren’t kissing me?


Gość portalu: Czytelnik z NJ napisał(a):

> You remind me of a skill politician who when asked unconvertible question
talks
>
> for five minutes with out saying much and with out answering the question.
>
> In his original post, Greatwhite, clearly stated that the first sentence
was
> his choice and he corrected the 2nd with a word gotten instead of got.
>
> In your response you stated:
>
> "You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
> got and gotten"
>
> And you went on with the most ridicules example/explanation:
>
> "To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
> the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
> "have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
> the substitution, the original question would read "What
> time must you work (this morning)?"
> I think you are in hot water now..."
>
> This was to confused us/him but he shut you down with the 2nd sentence of
his
>
> next post:
>
> "Not so!
> To say must work you would say I've got to work."
>
> In this post, Greatwhite, also proved that there is a difference between the
> word Got and Gotten and that the word gotten is the correct word in the 2nd
> sentence.
> Whether you like it or not the word gotten exists in Websters dictionary
which
>
> clearly distinguishes between Got and Gotten.
>
> So how did you respond to his post in which he clearly, quoting Webster
> Disctinary, proved you wrong?
>
> You completely ignored the fact that he answer your claim of "You are in deep
> water drawing a fishy distinction between got and gotten." , and like a skill
> politician you changed the subject:
> "In my humble opinion both "have got to" and "have gotten to" are ugly - so
> much for the beauty of the twins. It makes me wonder though why some managed
to
>
> legalize "have got to" while opposing the other?
> Don't they realize that "got" shouldn't be there? "
>
> What a turn around! First you decided to defend "Got" over "Gotten" but as
soon
>
> as you lost the argument you switched to disliking GOT and GOTTEN.
> I would only like to ad that who cares what you like in the discussion over
> grammar? Go to any dictionary and you will find Have Got and Have gotten
> whether you like it or not.
>
> As to the note to "Sinking Shark" your "chip tricks" confused only Bert who
> some how doesn't even remember the original objection he had to Greatwhites
> post. I remind you that Greatwhite himself did not like the 2nd sentence so
> why bring it up only after you lost on the GOT vs Gotten. Your original
> response objected only to drawing a distinction between GOT and Gotten and I
> could swear that this was the subject of your discussion.
> You wrote: "Your disposing of "this morning" and replacing "got"
with "gotten"
> (to accomplish what?here got, gotten mean arrived) contributed nothing but
> potential confusion. "
>
> To accomplish What????? To respond to your statement in which you wrote: "You
> are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between got and gotten"
>
> I think he responded very well ,and unlike you, on subject!
>
> You have a unique gift my friend. You talk alot with out saying much of
> anything. Your are also very good in timely switching of a subject when your
> opponent has your back against the wall.
>
> So despite your arrogance, or maybe because of it, and attempts to attack a
> person and not his ideas you lost the argument. Unless you measure victory in
> number of meaningless words used in the discussion.
>
> Pozdr
> Czytelnik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

GOOD GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gelatik_]

Do you speek the same way you write??
Keep it simple and stay on course!
You’re all over with this simple problem!


Gość portalu: Bert napisał(a):

> In my humble opinion both "have got to" and "have gotten
> to" are ugly - so much for the beauty of the twins. It
> makes me wonder though why some managed to legalize "have
> got to" while opposing the other?
> Don't they realize that "got" shouldn't be there? The
> infinitive (unconjugated verb, Anglos!) is "to have".
> Spoken intelligently, the phrase would be "I have to say
> it". Even worse, sometimes "have" is just dropped: "I got
> to say it". In this case, it seems the speaker considers
> "got" to be a synonym of have – the Brits are as guilty
> of it as the Yanks.
> Have it, you uneducated stiff-lipped Red Coats!
> That's just to balance the account; a preamble addressed
> to whoever suffers from the linguistic superiority complex.
>
> To the sinking shark:
> In my previous post I took the liberty of playing a trick
> on you. The second substitution was absolutely illegal
> (unlike the first). You didn't notice that, I assume,
> because you didn't protest. I distorted not only the
> meaning of the original question but also its tense.
> "Must" is present, and "have got(ten) to", despite its
> morphological present perfect form, refers to the present
> (it means "have to") – a cheap trick to show you that
> unfair modifications in a situation like this can lead to
> the point of absurdity. Your disposing of "this morning"
> and replacing "got" with "gotten" (to accomplish what?
> here got, gotten mean arrived) contributed nothing but
> potential confusion. To make things worse "What time have
> you gotten to work" is a logical and grammatical flub,
> with or without "this morning", ten times out of ten.
> Back to the shallows; it's wading time.

[tyrannosaurus.rex]

Gość portalu: Bert napisał(a):

>
> ɮnd should look like this: What time have you gotten to
> >work. But no one would ever say it!
> I sure hope so.
>
> You are in deep water drawing a fishy distinction between
> got and gotten.




Nothing fishy here! There is a difference between got and gotten. Why would the
two exist? I Suggest a quick look in any dictionary.




To pour cold water on your idea, and, at
> the same time, confuse you a bit, let's just say that
> "have got(ten) to work" means "must work" so that, after
> the substitution, the original question would read "What
> time must you work (this morning)?"
> I think you are in hot water now...

I think you are confused!...VERY!

gotten is american/ got is OK

[Gość: marta]

[Gość: Czytelnik z NJ]

Yest it is American:


www2.gazeta.pl/forum/794674,30353,794652.html?f=517&w=3693431&a=4160652

Keep it simple supid

[gelatik_]

What time did you get to work this morning?-----NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly!!.nt

[tyrannosaurus.rex]

[Gość: chickenShorts]

... Bert?!?

Sorry, pal,it can't be right while being wrong - untenable position!

Anyway, it's this ego thing, innit? Let it go! It doesn't exist, not really, a
mere mental construct. We are all learning here, well... ideally.