Talk:have

He has some money, hasn't he?

In the text, the use of this sentence as an example of British English: “He has some money, hasn't he?” is not correct. In spoken British English "have" used to mean possess would be placed as an auxiliary only when "got" is accompanying it. Therefore the sentence should read: "He's got some money, hasn't he?" Without got it should read "He has some money, doesn't he?" The use of have as an stand alone auxiliary only occurs in British English in regional English and even then, you'd be hard pushed to find an example.

Anonymous User 88.5.141.146, who wrote the above, is partially correct. In spoken British English we might also say "He does have some money, doesn't he?", but most English speakers would never say "He has some money, doesn't he?"
User 88.5.141.146 must be thinking of his particular regional English, influenced by American usage.
I think the article should remain as it stands, making a clear distinction between American and British written usage. Spoken usage evidently varies. Dbfirs 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion: May 2006

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

have

When I stopped vomiting, I noticed that the reason "have" is pink is due to its use of {{red}}. A few other entries ("mosquito", "mosquitos", and "grunt") also use that template. The template seems to signal inflections not in common use. I don't see any prior discussion on standardizing the display of such inflections, but there must be a better way than {{red}}. Rod (A. Smith) 01:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed all instances of that horrible creature. —Vildricianus 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Could someone please give me direction on whether to use have#Interrogative auxiliary verb or hasn't one? etc., simliarly am or aren't I? etc. for the relevant tags? The last discussion in RfD was driven by EC but resulted in no recommendation. Davilla 06:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. Have means one thing, hasn't one? means another; am is a standard verb form, while aren't I? is an informal and conversational phrase. What do you mean by relevant tags? —Stephen 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited link above. Do the tags for forming these questions go on the page for the auxiliary verb, or do they deserve their own pages (and quite a number of them)?

Have as a noun

There's a usage of have as a noun in (at least) New Zealand where it means approximately 'illegitimate deal' or 'raw deal' and often occurring as "a bit of a have". Colloquial and mostly just in spoken English so it turns up in transcribed quotes mostly.

[NZherald: 'Rugby: Top ref admits he did bad job' 21 Jan, 2012] "Some guys try to put that friendly persona on, try to make out that if they're smiling, everything is under control. I think it's a bit of a have really."

Interesting: could it be from have on, having someone on? Equinox ◑ 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds pretty plausible. If you nounified to 'have someone on' makes sense you'd end up with just 'have'.

thou

The wikipedia entry of thou mentions

A few verbs have irregular thou forms:
to have: thou hast, thou hadst

--Backinstadiums (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We typically don't include those, because they are no longer used (or at least are very rarely used). You will still be able to find entries for irregular forms like hast and hadst, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to have met her

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 148, reads

I would like to have met her and I would have liked to have met her, which are often used to convey the same meaning as I would have liked to  meet her, are ambiguous: they also have interpretations in which anteriority applies to the meeting. These interpretations are pragmatically unlikely in the examples chosen, but become more salient if we change met her to finished it.

What are the two interpretations of such sentences which make them ambiguous? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"I would have liked to" (but I no longer wish it). "I would like to have done" (and I still wish I had done). Equinox ◑ 12:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: then to which meaning does anteriority applies to the meeting apply? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Meeting in the past. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: But can't I would have liked to meet her be said even when you still want to meet her (even if it's no longer possible, for example because of her demise) --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes somebody might say that. A pedant might criticise it, since it seems that "would have liked" is in the past (whereas "I would [still] like" is present"). Equinox ◑ 02:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Backshifting within the scope of a modally remote preterite

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 152, reads

If he knew she had too many commitments, he would do something about it is a remote conditional, with the preterite in knew expressing modal remoteness, not past time: the time of knowing is present. So too (certainly in the salient interpretation) is the time of her having too many commitments: it is a matter of knowing in the present about a situation obtaining in the present. And the same applies to I wish he realised that she had too many commitments.

From a semantic point of view, therefore, the preterite carried by have must be distinguished from that carried by know or realise, which is reflected in the grammar in that irrealis were is not substitutable for was in this construction:

If he knew she was/∗were too busy, he would do something about it

I wish he realised that she was/∗were too busy.

In what dialect are those the salient interpretations? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

have something on somebody

Is the meaning of "What does he have on you?" added yet? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

'st

'st from hast as in thou'st is not added yet --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

had pronunciation

According to LPD

At the beginning of a sentence the usual weak form is [həd], or in rapid speech [d]. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The weak form /v/ of have is used only after a vowel (when it is often written as the contraction 've), or in very fast speech at the beginning of a sentence. Weak forms of have, has, had are used only when the word functions as the perfective auxiliary, or is the equivalent of have got and is used with an object that is not a pronoun, or in the constructions had better/best/rather. JMGN (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

modal

is it a modal in what have we here? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The baby will certainly have blue eyes, because both parents have --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

not have any of

To refuse to acknowledge, allow, accept, or participate in something. I won't have any of this scheme—I have a public image to upkeep! --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We usually have my mother to stay over Christmas

What meaning is used here? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Compare the causative: We usually have my mother stay over Christmas JMGN (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

behave

False analogies frequently produce irregular analogical formations in the language of children, e.g. ‘I am being have’ from a false analysis of the imperative ‘Behave yourself!’ --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Her boyfriend is the person she has do most of her dirty deeds

Does any one meaning match the use in this sentence? --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This one: "(transitive with bare infinitive) To cause to, by a command, request or invitation." 98.170.164.88 20:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

have + object + ing/-ed

Causative meaning as in She soon had us all laughing/worried. JMGN (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Usage note: participle clauses after nouns

Participle clauses after nouns are often very like relative clauses, but perfect participles are not often used in this way: Who's the man dancing with your aunt? vs Do you know anyone that's lost a brooch? JMGN (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Usage note: passive infinitive

With verbs like think, feel, believe, know, the object + infinitive structure is rather formal, but its passive (e.g. He is believed to be...) is common, and the infinitive structure of say is only possible in the passive: your business is said to be in a dire predicament. JMGN (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Usage note: present perfect

According to Swan's Practical,

With definite expressions of ‘time up to now' (e.g. today, this month), the present perfect focuses on the whole period, while the simple past on a finished part of the period.

Thus, the present perfect focuses on past events together with their present results: I can’t come fro a swim: I’ve broken my arm. Yet, a past tense is preferred when we identify what is responsible for a present situation (i.e., we think about the past cause, not the present result): Some fool has let the cat out. - Really? Who did?

Relatedly, after announcing news, usually the simple past gives more details: Granpa has crashed the car again. He ran into a van.

In subordinate clauses, it's used instead of the future perfect to express the idea of completion: I'll phone you when I (*will) have finished. JMGN (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve got the house full of children

What exact meaning is used here? JMGN (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

be not having any (of it)

As in I asked him for some money, but he wasn’t having any of it. JMGN (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect infinitive

According to Fowler, J was sorry to miss you when you called is preferable to ...to have missed you when you called. JMGN (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Usage note: personal pronouns after prepositions

According to Swan's Practical, personal pronouns can be dropped after prepositions in descriptive structures with have and with':

The shrub have got bloom on (it).

The box has glasses in (it).

JMGN (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Usage note: theme-rheme

According to Swan's Practical, the agent is usually made the subject with an active verb form

The storm blew Jose's roof off. Somebody’s dropped mayonnaise all over the kitchen floor.

The patient is usually made the subject with a passive verb form:

Jose's roof was blown off in the storm. Mayonnaise has been dropped all over the kitchen floor.

Something else can often be made the subject with have + object + past participle:

Jose had his roof blown off in the storm. The kitchen floor has had mayonnaise dropped all over it.

Structures with have are often used to ‘personalise* a situation by making a person the subject:

I've got the house full of kids all weekend.

JMGN (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I had you figured for a lawyer

What exact meaning is used here? JMGN (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Contractions

Shouldn't this lemma entry mention/explain the usage of the contracted forms like " 've" and " 's"? Is there a reason why it does not? Jan R Müller (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Has has the alt. form ‘s on its page, but have (this page) does not have ‘ve, so I've added it. | Languagelover3000 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)