Re: USAGE: gotten

Tristan McLeay writes:
 > On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 21:05, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
 > > Quoting Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>:
 > >
 > > > I was just installing Windows XP today and happened to notice that it
 > > > said 'If you've had a computer before, you've probably GOTTEN things the
 > > > way you like it', or some-such like that (the actual wording isn't
 > > > important, 'gotten' there is being used in the same way as it was on the
 > > > banner).
 > > >
 > > > 'Gotten' there seems wrong to me (and my younger brother, who generally
 > > > speaks more Americanly than I do). Is that some usage of 'gotten' that
 > > > hasn't (yet) passed into Australian English, or is it ungrammatical in
 > > > the US too and just somehow managed to slip through?
 > >
 > > Almost all varieties of American English have two functionally distinct
 > > past participles of the verb <get>:  <got>, which is homophonous with
 > > the preterite form, and <gotten> which is not.  The former is used only
 > > when "I've got (to)" is equivalent to "I have" or "I must". In all other
 > > circumstances, <gotten> is used.
 >
 > Umm... so that means that I'm right and WinXP was wrong? (Because 'You
 > probably have things the way you like it' is correct?)
 >

That's not what it's saying, though*.  It's suggesting that you have,
in the past, carried out actions which resulted in things being the
way you like it, you've got(ten) them into that state.  "You probably
have things the way you like it" is about the state of things, not
about your past labours in effecting that state.

Incidentally, it seems a little odd to me that they used "it"
referring to "way" rather than "them" referring to "things".

* I'm extrapolating here, as I speak British English.  But this
  follows for how I'd use "got", and it's how I'd understand the
  American.