tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post8491399644528234634..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: be/have nothing to do withlynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64066242535113367732014-04-13T00:56:04.225+01:002014-04-13T00:56:04.225+01:00I realize this is a language blog but isn't 53...I realize this is a language blog but isn't 53/2 > 76/7?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02138260302522477243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-11693989740617762272012-06-30T01:22:44.986+01:002012-06-30T01:22:44.986+01:00There's also have got on both sides of the Atl...There's also <i>have got</i> on both sides of the Atlantic —at least when <i>nothing</i> is implied in a question.<br /><br /><i>What's love got to do with it?<br />What's that got to do with the price of fish?</i><br /><br />Personally I (elderly British English speaker) make a distinction between:<br /><br />A. <br /><i>It's nothing to do with me</i><br />— a comment on me — my total lack of involvement <br />(often a denial of responsibility)<br />—I wouldn't use <i>It has nothing to do with me</i> in the same sense.<br /><br />B. <br /><i>1. She's happy, but her happiness has nothing to do with his defeat.<br />2. She's happy, but it has nothing to do with his defeat.<br />3. She's happy, but it's nothing to do with his defeat</i><br />— a denial that there is any causal connection — the two are independently motivated<br />—<i>Has</i> is necessary in [1] for reasons of sound.<br />— [2] and [3] are equivalent — except that [2] is a little more formal.<br /><br />I suppose I have a rule:<br /><br />• FINAL NOUN PHRASE refers to ENTITY AFFECTING THE SUBJECT<br />(or rather not affecting it)<br />— <i>is, 's</i> but NOT <i>has</i><br /><br />• FINAL NOUN PHRASE refers to ENTITY IN CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP <br />(or rather not in causal relationship)<br />— <i>has</i> (more formal), <i>is</i> or <i>'s</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-40004182521170945302012-06-29T08:52:36.004+01:002012-06-29T08:52:36.004+01:00Interesting. I found http://www.learnersdictionary...Interesting. I found http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/DO, which does indeed mention this distinction between American and British English!Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-23364882597205244432008-09-11T04:37:00.000+01:002008-09-11T04:37:00.000+01:00Oops, I must to bed. Dropped the all important "t...Oops, I must to bed. Dropped the all important "to do" from the phrase.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-20251543729385200342008-09-11T04:35:00.000+01:002008-09-11T04:35:00.000+01:00Maybe so, Lynne!There is also some difference in d...Maybe so, Lynne!<BR/><BR/>There is also some difference in direction. "I am/have nothing to do with it" vs. "it is/has nothing to do with me." Nah, I guess both countries say both.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we (Americans) don't say "Am I nothing to you", but we might say "What am I, chopped liver (to you)?" <BR/><BR/>Don't mind me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47778480624065726482008-09-10T20:59:00.000+01:002008-09-10T20:59:00.000+01:00But I don't know why it should differ between UK a...But I don't know why it should differ between UK and US.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-43830441984524909912008-09-10T20:57:00.000+01:002008-09-10T20:57:00.000+01:00Well, I know my daft scenario mentioned the class ...Well, I know my daft scenario mentioned the class system but that was merely part of the melodrama - I wanted to introduce the phrase 'am I nothing to you?' - probably frequent in trashy novels but not visible in a Google search (back to the teaching point!). <BR/>The other sentences were attempts to use the phrases suggested by James. Here's my theory - after a couple of weeks' mulling: One could replace 'something/anything to do with' with the word 'relationship' or 'connection', in which case the verb must be 'has' - and 'is' comes from the double use of it's for it is and it has.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-85561629999367068732008-09-10T20:44:00.000+01:002008-09-10T20:44:00.000+01:00I think you're thinking too hard, Anne!I think you're thinking too hard, Anne!lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-31566257672313487992008-09-10T15:01:00.000+01:002008-09-10T15:01:00.000+01:00Thinking about this difference I was wondering if ...Thinking about this difference I was wondering if it had to do with the more rigid class system in England, where people are born into position whereas Americans might have the opportunity to get into or out of, to own or disown. I'm sure I'm not expressing this very well. I'm just curious what the effect is between the sense of being unrelated or having no relation to something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-18278551758205549392008-09-08T21:00:00.000+01:002008-09-08T21:00:00.000+01:00'Oh, Sir Hugo!' cried Evangeline, the poor but hon...'Oh, Sir Hugo!' cried Evangeline, the poor but honest laundry maid, 'am I nothing to you? Do you not appreciate my lovingly dashing away with the smoothing iron?'<BR/>'Alas, my dear' grumbled Sir Hugo, 'Mummy says I must have nothing to do with you because you are a mere maid - it's all to do with the British class system, you see..'<BR/>'Huh,' said Evangeline scornfully, 'I bet that snooty young Lady Lydia had something to do with it too. It's nothing to do with class, it's all about money, I'm sure. You may spurn my love, but she will never give you clean shirts!'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-19276154995707374102008-09-08T19:44:00.000+01:002008-09-08T19:44:00.000+01:00I didn't comment because just thinking about it ma...I didn't comment because just thinking about it made my brain hurt. One of the 'lost generation' of children that never got taught any grammar or parts of speech beyond 'doing words' and barely got taught any punctuation. I'm sure I'm not alone...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-65164024190415943472008-09-08T10:17:00.000+01:002008-09-08T10:17:00.000+01:00I tried to post this comment way back in the begin...I tried to post this comment way back in the beginning, but I managed to lose it somehow. I didn't feel like typing it in again, but now that I see that people want more comments...<BR/><BR/>I (AmE) would never use "is nothing...", so I have a question for those who do use it. Would you ever use any of the following?<BR/><BR/>"is something to do with"<BR/>"is anything to do with"<BR/>"is to do with"<BR/><BR/>For me, the "has" versions of all of these are perfectly fine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16148117734767664422008-09-07T23:06:00.000+01:002008-09-07T23:06:00.000+01:00Thanks for the pep talk, anne t. But thanks to t...Thanks for the pep talk, anne t. But thanks to the wonders of sitemeter, I know that viewing of the blog has gone up this week in spite of my warning of reduced posting! It's only the comments that have gone down...lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70347886657815917452008-09-07T22:44:00.000+01:002008-09-07T22:44:00.000+01:00Lynne, the drop in participation might have more t...Lynne, the drop in participation might have more to do with your warning us a few weeks ago that you would just post once a week.<BR/><BR/>And all I can say about this is, "interesting!" I wonder if the use of it in American academic institutions can be explained by the presence of British or, what did you call it, people who speak "Britishoid Englishes" there. (Did you coin that?)<BR/><BR/>Your teaching moment was stunning! How nice to see you delicately dissect and articulate the flaws! I had not seen them before you pointed them out! Very neat to see!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8645017065008868082008-09-07T22:15:00.000+01:002008-09-07T22:15:00.000+01:00Yeah, I found it a little disheartening. Write ab...Yeah, I found it a little disheartening. Write about toilets or vegetable names and the comments abound. Write about something that hasn't already been discussed on dozens of other websites--something that seems to have been newly documented as a BrE/AmE distinction, and few seem to care!<BR/><BR/>I hope I'll get over it.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-86605450095072371472008-09-07T20:57:00.000+01:002008-09-07T20:57:00.000+01:00Hmm. I see that nobody wanted to have anything to ...Hmm. I see that nobody wanted to have anything to do with this topic!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-88439679078436062302008-09-04T23:49:00.000+01:002008-09-04T23:49:00.000+01:00I've heard "nothing got to do with" but had regard...I've heard "nothing got to do with" but had regarded it as just another ephemeral piece of ludic adolescent in-group slang. I do hope it hasn't taken root. I know I shouldn't care, but I just can't help myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-23077839647558756062008-09-04T09:04:00.000+01:002008-09-04T09:04:00.000+01:00I'm with Fnarf.I'm with Fnarf.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64512155722762097582008-09-02T19:44:00.000+01:002008-09-02T19:44:00.000+01:00Or: It's nothing got to do with me, which sounds m...Or: It's nothing got to do with me, which sounds much more idiomatic to this Dublin English-speaker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-56505229559671260772008-09-02T18:25:00.000+01:002008-09-02T18:25:00.000+01:00"It's got nothing to do with me" is how I'd say it..."It's got nothing to do with me" is how I'd say it.Fnarfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15022243603033471232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-5018564012118015442008-09-02T15:42:00.000+01:002008-09-02T15:42:00.000+01:00BRIT!:No, because "it's got" and "that's got" can ...BRIT!:<BR/>No, because "it's got" and "that's got" can only mean it has or that has, never it is or that is. "It is got" or "that is got" nothing to do with me would make no sense, so "it's got" would be a multiplication only of the "it has" side. So "it's got" and "it has" could be added together and opposed to "it is".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-76863244528106504282008-09-02T02:23:00.000+01:002008-09-02T02:23:00.000+01:00Searching "got nothing to do with" doesn't really ...Searching "got nothing to do with" doesn't really address the issue at hand though. Think about it, you wouldn't say just the phrase "got nothing to do with [me]". You would say "That HAS got nothing to do with me" or "That's got nothing to do with..."<BR/><BR/>...which places us squarely back where Tim started but with an extra word thrown in the mix.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Oh, and my 2 cents: I use the "has/have" version myself in almost all situations (AZ, USA)BRIT!https://www.blogger.com/profile/11167446228520805073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-31177867634516268542008-09-02T02:21:00.000+01:002008-09-02T02:21:00.000+01:00Much obliged, Lynne. It was a few of those "teach...Much obliged, Lynne. It was a few of those "teaching moments" from the past that encouraged me to try the Google comparison at all. Now I can aspire to being more sophisticated about it next time. (I see your point about "have" having multiple uses, too, but I've a long way to go before I start thinking that much like a linguist.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-32378133707435612972008-09-02T01:24:00.000+01:002008-09-02T01:24:00.000+01:00Or even "got nothing to do with". Ahem.Or even "got nothing to do with". Ahem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-25733234545748443392008-09-02T01:22:00.000+01:002008-09-02T01:22:00.000+01:00You should also check for "got nothing to with". I...You should also check for "got nothing to with". I leave this as an exercise for the class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com