The colloquial, vernacular, formal, common and standard method of forming an interrogative has not been quarantined from the verb, [ To Have ]. Contrarily, [ To Have ] is an auxiliary and a lexical operator verb.
Have you no shame?
Have you no sense of decency? ‧ www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/.../Have_you_no_sense_of_decency.htm
had you any thoughts ‧ www.pennine-gp-training.co.uk/res/phrases_for_ice_in_the_csa.docx
had you a copy of this book on board? ‧ www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq26Marconi01.php
‧ have you ‧ had you ‧ English: History, Diversity, and Change ‧ books.google.com/books?isbn=0415131170 ‧
"Had you any idea," ‧ dailylit.com/read/137-emma?page=135 ‧
Interrogative sentences are typically marked by inversion of the subject and predicate; that is, the first verb in a verb phrase appears before the subject. ‧ www.thoughtco.com/what-is-an-interrogative-sentence-1691183
Have you any sense ‧ www.ox.ac.uk/research/research-in-conversation/making-sense-numbers/paul-newman
Have you some idea ‧ elite.law.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/institution/ou.../i.../Constitutional%20Law.pdf
Have you any idea ‧ www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm
Have you a copy ‧ www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg436.pdf
Have you a tiger ‧ www.royalleicestershireregiment.org.uk/have-you-a-tiger
Have you a daughter? ‧ Shakespeare ‧ Hamlet ‧ Act II, Scene II ‧ 118 K hits
What dowry has she? ‧ Shakespeare ‧ Two Noble Kinsmen ‧ Act V, Scene II ‧ 3.5 K hits
What is the origin for a prohibition on an interrogatory verb with a leading letter H? Have you? ‧ Are? ‧ Can? ‧ Could? ‧ Do? ‧ May? ‧ Might? ‧ Must? ‧ Ought? ‧ Shall? ‧ Should? ‧ Will? ‧ Would? ‧
"To Have" and "To Do" are the infinitive forms, "To have and to hold" ‧ Neither Have nor Do are auxiliary restricted modal verbs.
Unfortunately DL is a stupid machine generated reply. Normally I always use 'do you ..' even if I wouldn't use it in day to day speech just to satisfy the system. Alas I forgot this time. I can see that nobody is necessarily going to learn English as spoken from DL so I suppose the reverse is true. I you want to learn a language you need to live in the country.
I am sorry to disagree, but I believe "Have you something " is good English. It is not always definitive to rely on grammar references as you will find they often contradict each other. There is no comparison between txt speak gobbledegook and correct acceptable spoken English. Have you breaks no grammatical rules and cannot be compared with eat you. This is a nice polite forum, sometimes we have to agree to differ
How convenient! Try that in court.
Based on your suggestion, why learn a language in the first place when muttering something and pointing at things is as effective as "grammar referencies [...] contradicts themselves"? By the way, please suply evidence of a grammar which contradicts the mentioned rule.
I am afraid it is not.
have can be an auxiliary verb (when used with another verb. Ex I have eaten) or a normal verb with the meaning of "possession" (ex I have a car).
- as a verb (with the meaning "possession"), it follows the same rules as any other verb, i.e. do you have a car. You would not say: eat you an apple?
- as an auxiliary, it is placed at these beginning of the question. Ex have you eaten?
This perfectly correct sentence structure has been in use continuously in English since Anglo-Saxon (and is the reason it can be found in English from nursery rhymes (Have you any wool?) to courtrooms (Have you anything to say in your defence?)
It's the same in other modern Germanic languages, be they North or West Germanic (Scandinavian or Teutonic, or however you want to slice them), though those languages mostly have far fewer options than English does.
Regards your source, you surely don't expect it to be comprehensive, and that anything not included on that small page (as an example for the aid of foreigners learning the basics) is not acceptable?
For what it's worth, not that you're likely to know whether this is true on the internet, I'm an Englishman from England with an academic background in (mostly English) linguistics and philology, who currently makes a living teaching (mostly) English.
This is a fair argument from descriptivism. Descriptivism is not the same as "anything goes", and simply argues that if something's in common and widespread usage, and in this case it has been for a thousand years at all levels of society and in all kinds of literature, then it is not an error; it's a part of the language.
In this case, if you want to argue legitimacy, it actually has more claim to "correctness" than the alternatives, as it is far older and the other options were born as corruptions and developments of this one.
Thank you so much for your courteous and informed comment. It is sad that internet forums so often descend in to unpleasantness, let's all enjoy learning italian to the best of our ability. Most of us are just doing our best, and I for one have been frequently helped by people on this forum
I am afraid that it is Muttley71 who is "embarrassing" himself in the post below. Unsure if he is English but only someone who is totally arrogant would argue with someone with your background and qualifications. I too am UK born and bred as is my wife. Whilst neither of us have your level of experience, my wife was a teacher with over 37 years experience who also had a degree equivalent qualification in language development. In our view, 'Do you have... is preferred to 'Have you...' but both are correct English. My wife always taught that 'have got' 9 times out of 10 was poor UK English and more Transatlantic. I had the same discussion (argument) on another thread on DL with a Canadian woman who insisted my wife was wrong and that 'Have' without 'got' was "archaic" and only used by people from small UK provincial towns (I was born in London). She then used the 'might is right' argument in that the UK is a small island and x million people in US and Canada cannot be wrong so 'Have got' and 'gotten' (Shudder) are both good English.
Frankly I think Muttley 71 is a troll and whilst some of his posts are helpful, the reliability of his 'sources' are , as you say, suspect and therefore unreliable.
You are embarassing yourself.
You have been given the opportunity to learn and correct yourself. Instead you hide yourself behind a lot of bla bla and a sentence taken from a poem (César Vallejo). Your lack of humbleness (I won't mention my academic titles) is a testament of your failure.
You are certainly not doing yourself and Duolingo's students any good.
Unlike other main verbs, have continued to be used as an operator long after the development of periphrastic do, as for example in 'Have you any sugar?'
Sorry Muttley71 . You are not correct. I was taught that the word "got" can always be substituted by another word, or can be omitted altogether. E.g. Have you got any money.....Have you any money. Have you got a cold? Do you have a cold. "Got " is always redundant though it is common in USA .
'Have got....' is an Americanism albeit one that has made its way across the Atlantic in relatively recent times. Have and got together in this context was (and still is) in some schools in the UK regarded as poor English. 'Do you have ....' is fine. Have and got - regardless of grammatical rules- is duplication of meaning and clumsy. David Styles is correct. This crops up time and again in DL which highlights its American origins. I do not argue that 'I have got' is actually incorrect but rather that 'Do you have...' or 'Have you....' are equally correct. Someone at DL needs to go through the phrases and allow 'Have you....' without the 'got' after 'have'.
"got" is completely superfluous when coupled with a verb that expresses the intention by itself, so "have you got" is a poor English construction, which, correctly, should read "have you", or "do you have"; note that in either construction, "got" is ugly and totally superfluous.
I was raised in a proper American home, where we were encouraged, to always use proper grammar. While most Americans use the word "got", it wasn't allowed in our home. It simply wasn't considered proper English. I agree with the Brits, in this, although it may be used in less educated circles, it should not be considered good or proper English. I have to say, Americans tend to look at you oddly, if you start a sentence with, "Have you...", rather than "Do you have..." however, most Americans do not have a good education. So, thank those of you who are trying to keep proper English alive, both in America and England. It makes me feel that I'm not alone.
I am getting more than a little annoyed at this one - "Do you have..." is fine, "Have you..." is also fine, and as a UK English speaker, I almost never use "Have you got..." and certainly wouldn't in this context. Duolingo, please, sort this one out, it's costing me wrong answers every time!
Eventually the robot will learn proper English! I find it makes it harder to learn the Italian, as these extra "got"s don't occur in the Italian, and it's far easier to think in the correct structure for Italian if you think in as close to it as you can manage in English - otherwise I end up trying to put in words that aren't needed. "Have you a..." is a much closer translation of "Hai un..." than "Have you got a..."
In proper English one never says "Have you got... " That would have had my teachers in a rage." I was teased at home for saying it in that fashion. It is simply not good or proper English. Only people who weren't taught any better would ever use that sentence. I will not use that word in that sentence.
Presto! Let's call Merriam-Webster and Cambridge University and inform them that they are wrong!
Both mention 'do you have' and 'have you got' as (almost) synonyms but they must be incorrect because of some confused school memories.
And let's all have respect and politeness. We are here to learn and help each other. This is not the first time I have noticed you making unpleasant comments. Please be generous. We are not all clever or academically knowledgeable. Let's just enjoy learning and enjoy the diversity of each other's comments Trolling is not clever or pretty
And you @Muttley71 are an ill-mannered troll who is clearly not capable of reading a debate properly. The question is not whether one is or is not correct, but that, if both are to be considered correct, then both should be permissible as the translation. You are as entitled as me, or anyone else, to speak English in whatever manner you desire, and if enough people share your form of speech, whether it is strictly correct or not, the dictionaries will list those forms, as common usage and not adherence to the rules of English is the criteria by which most dictionaries choose their entries. For those of us that do wish to use the language correctly, it is extremely frustrating to find that our responses are marked as "wrong" when they are at least as valid as the suggested answer. Particularly when the suggested answer is in common usage in one part only of the English-speaking world - which is not necessarily the case here, but is certainly the case from time to time on Duolingo. So instead of trolling, read the debate properly. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than research the usage of phrases. I know what I was taught in school, and I know how English is used in the literature I read for pleasure, and "got" is a far from common word in well-spoken British English. Perhaps you like "Do you got..."? It's as common as muck on rubbish TV though. Which is a pity, especially for those that aren't exposed to good literature as children. And that's what undermines the breadth and scope of a language, more than anything else. The reduction in the variety of ways in which one can say the same thing. English is particularly rich in that sense, and quoting small-database dictionaries does not help maintain that richness. Oh, and Webster's is the US English dictionary. If you ask it for synonyms of "hue" it offers "color". Which is not a word with which I am familiar in the UK. I could tell you the history of that and similar US spellings of English words of French origin, but I really need to go and learn Italian, so I'll let you find out how Webster's came to exist. But it's not really surprising that it offers you the answer you want, is it? ;) Also, "the" is not necessary in English prior to the word "Cambridge" in your opening sentence... xx
IanMiller1945 I share your frustration, however, I don't think we can say "Liter" is wrong, or that it would be pronounced differently. It is American English, not better, not worse, but different. I think we should reasonably expect Duo to accept both AE and UK. It is an American site. As for Italians learning English, I have realised that so many Italians have links with America, that is where they learn English. This is especially true of the young, who learn fluency from the internet games, films and other online media. We have no monopoly of the language and how it evolves in other countries. A similar annoyance for our Italian and French colleagues is the number of English words that have crept into their usage. As long as we make no mistakes with the Italian spellings we will be fine
No but Duo is, and also many American learners with Italian heritage. We Brits are in the minority which is fine, we have no ownership of a language that has evolved differently. Duo does in fact accept quite a lot of UK English versions and is also learning. This is the nature of the programme, if you read up on its aims and objectives. It is not to teach a language, but rather to learn others usage. Clever really