have

This is the second most important verb in English, after be, and like be it is both an auxiliary and
a full main verb.

1 As an auxiliary verb the prime function of have is to express the perfect aspect of compound
verbs, as in:
I have waited
she has been waiting
they had waited
(See further under aspect.) These constructions are used in English everywhere, though
database evidence shows that they are more popular in British than American English (Hofland
and Johansson, 1982). Americans tend to use a simple past tense (I/she/they waited) when other
elements of the sentence (usually time adverbials) can express the aspect. Compare:
They had waited four hours before seeing a doctor.
They waited four hours before seeing a doctor.
The simple past rather than the present perfect is often found with just (see under just or justly).
Note also that with yet, auxiliary have is sometimes replaced by be (see under yet).

Have has other auxiliary or semi-auxiliary functions to express obligation, as in:

They have to come with us.
They’ve got to come with us.
The latter is the more informal of the two constructions. (See further under get section 2).

Other quasi-auxiliary roles for have are as a causative verb, and to express management or
facilitation of an action or event:
They’re having our house painted.
We’ll have them start next week.
See further under transitive section 1.

2 As a main verb have carries the sense of possession or attribution, as in:

I have a book about it.
They have the right idea.
But possessive / attributive statements are often expressed with have got, in American as well as
British English:
I’ve got a book about it.
They’ve got the right idea.
Have is then usually contracted, as in these examples. The use of simple have to express
possession (once a hallmark of British English) is declining in the UK; meanwhile Americans
make more and more use of plain got, according to the Longman Grammar (1999), as in I got a
book about it.(cf. section 1 above). To British ears this might sound like a recent acquisition,
though in American English this would be expressed with gotten: I’ve gotten a book (see get
section 3).

When possessive sentences are made negative and/or into questions, there are several
alternatives and some regional preferences, depending on whether the construction involves a
definite or indefinite abject.
*With definite objects they are as follows:
a) I don’t have the book about it. Don’t I have the book about it?
b) I haven’t got the book about it. Haven’t I got the book about it?
c) I haven’t the book about it. Haven’t I the book about it?
Construction (a) is typical for American English, and (b) for British, at least in conversation. But
the British do make use of (a), according to Longman Grammar research. Construction (c) is rare
except in British fiction.
*Indefinite objects allow the same range of alternatives, but there is greater convergence on the
last alternative:
a) They don’t have any idea. Don’t they have any idea?
b) They haven’t got any idea. Haven’t they got any idea?
c) They haven’t any idea. Haven’t they any idea?
d) They have no idea.
The Longman Grammar found construction (d) the majority form for the negated indefinite object
in both British and American English, and across spoken and written styles. Constructions (a), (b)
and (c) are distributed in the same way for indefinites as for definites.

Final notes: combinations with have

*have is often redundant when repeated in successive verb phrases, witness:
I would have liked to have seen the Cook Islands before the cyclone.
One instance of have seems to have prompted another. In conversations one or both would be
contracted (to ‘ve), and, in writing, the second one could well be removed. It makes the same
point when rephrased as:
I would have liked to see the Cook Islands before the cyclone.
*have is usually redundant in the construction had have that expresses impossible conditions:
If they had’ve realized how hopeless it was, they would never have tried to go on.
The use of ‘ve (for have) is unnecessary, and the sentence reads better without it:
If they had realized how hopeless it was they would never have tried . . .

*have is necessary in combinations with modal verbs such as could, may, might, should, would.
After them, have is sometimes misheard or misconstrued by naïve writers as of, hence ‘could of’,
‘might of’ etc., and also the occasional ‘had of’. The problem is easily identified by computer
grammar checkers, or a simple computer search.

Peters, P. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. 2004.