Has he bath? Has he breakfast? and static and dynamic verbs

[emsr2d2]

Thank you so much. My dream is [STRIKE]being[/STRIKE] to be an English teacher and [STRIKE]teaching[/STRIKE] [to] teach this beautiful language to children. I especially want to be [STRIKE]a sufficient[/STRIKE] an efficient one. Therefore, I wanted to know more about these sentences.

[STRIKE]About this topic,[/STRIKE] I think it's better to stick to the "possession" and "action" logic of "have" for teaching others as you [STRIKE]had[/STRIKE] taught me. [STRIKE]that,[/STRIKE] “Has he a bath?” is grammatically correct because it implies possession space here (owning) of something space here ([STRIKE]ex. -[/STRIKE] For example, "He has a bath in his house/cottage") but “Has he any fun?” and “Has he a chat?” are not correct because they don't imply possession.

I wonder why “Has he a chat?” is not ungrammatical for old-fashioned English?

Also, why is your example "Does he chat?" instead of "Does he have a chat?" What is the difference between "Does he chat?" and "Does he have a chat?"?

Sorry for my exhausting questions.

"Has he a chat?" is ungrammatical in any form of English, old-fashioned or not. "Does he chat?" implies a repeated action. For example:

Helen: I'm going to have to fire Sam.
Tom: Why?
Helen: He's so lazy! He never seems to get any work done.
Tom: What does he do instead? Does he chat?
Helen: Yes, he chats to his colleagues, checks his phone, and just about anything else to avoid working!

I can't think of a natural context for "Does he have a chat?"

 

[PaulMatthews]

I’m curios that are “Has he breakfast at 7 a.m.?”, “Has he a bath?”, “Has he any fun?”, and “Has he a chat?” grammatically correct but old-fashioned? I know I’m being a little annoying but I’m looking for a certain answer if they are grammatical or not.

Irrespective of how such examples derive historically, they are ungrammatical in Present-day Standard English.

Dynamic "have" is a lexical verb. It requires do-support in negatives whereas auxiliary "have" has the usual n't inflectional form. In clauses with inversion, again lexical "have" requires do-support, whereas auxiliary “have” does not:

Does he have breakfast at 7am? [lexical]
He doesn't have breakfast at 7am. [lexical]
Has he breakfast at 7am? [auxiliary - ungrammatical]
He hasn't breakfast at 7am. [auxiliary - ungrammatical]

 

[emsr2d2]

An old-fashioned and outdated form of "Does he have breakfast at 7am?" is "Does he breakfast at 7am?" This is from the days when "to breakfast" was used as a verb. It's still grammatical but no one would use it.

 

[5jj]

1. Does he have breakfast at 7am? [lexical]
2. He doesn't have breakfast at 7am. [lexical]
3. Has he breakfast at 7am? [auxiliary - ungrammatical]
4. He hasn't breakfast at 7am. [auxiliary - ungrammatical]

I agree that have is a lexical verb in (1) and (2) and that these sentences are grammatical.
I agree that sentences (3) and (4) are not grammatical, but do not agree that have is an auxiliary verb there. I think that it's a lexical verb, similar in meaning to eat or consume.

Paul and I have given our opinions. I don't think this thread is the place to repeat/resume a discussion of this. Members who are interested enough may wish to start a thread on it in the linguistics forum.

 

[freijorn]

I thank you so much for your precious anwers my teachers. Thanks to you I got it now.

 

[Rover_KE]

Good. Thread closed.