@Jim - I've sent 4 dictionary references as well as some grammar website references, but they're being held over for approval (too many URLs). In the meantime if you google 'have got', the first two entries are About.com and GrammarGirl - they will give you an American perspective while the other references are being approved.

@Jim - Hi. I think this is mainly British usage, which is why you might not find it in US dictionaries (but you will find it if you google it) . So here's a couple (or four) -

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/have
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/have_2
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/have_2
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/have

And from ESL and grammar websites
http://esl.about.com/cs/beginner/a/beg_havegot.htm
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/have-got-grammar.aspx
http://www.eslbase.com/grammar/have-got
http://www.better-english.com/havegot.htm (quiz with examples)

See, it really isn't a figment of my imagination.

Note to administrator -this is not entering my name, but part of my email address instead.

@Jackbox - my 'full stop' was meant to be an ironic reply to @Jim's 'period'. Well yes, I am relatively sure of myself because I've been teaching English for ten years, and I also checked out my facts fairly carefully before commenting, see references above. (swa.randomidea).

I agree with the gist of your argument, but would just add that for us Brits, the ' have got' is the more usual construction. As for whether it's redundant or not, is of supreme indifference to me (as you could see just then), it's the way most of us speak. Unless of course I was writing for the New Yorker, but that's not going to happen.

"He's very lucky really. He's got a wonderful family and they've got a lovely old house in the country, which his family have had for centuries. The house has also got a huge garden, which needs a lot of attention."

"Luckily he's got a good job to pay for all the upkeep. But sometimes the pressure can be a bit much. His company's got an important contract which has to be finalised this week, so they've got a lot of work on. This afternoon alone he's got three client meetings. He also had three yesterday and will probably have a couple more tomorrow. But at least he's got the weekend free"

It's not rocket science. My EFL students can handle it easily enough. 'have got' = alternative present tense of 'have' for possession - no more, no less. (Notice past, future and perfect forms all use simple 'have') This usage for possession is probably more common in the UK than simple 'have'. It's natural Standard English - just check a dictionary (BrE are likely to have more about it. See comment above), but @Jim, please look under 'have got', not 'got', which is something completely different. 'I got a car' (get) is a red herring; it has nothing to do with 'I've got a car' (have got), full stop.

First, I suggest you do a little experiment. Say 'I have a car' and then 'I've got a car', and notice how your mouth moves. The second is more efficient (we don't have to open wide for the 'a' sound in have, everything goes smoothly forward). I suspect, but have no scientific evidence to back this up, that very often when we have a choice, between 'which' or 'that' for example, we go for the one which involves the least mouth movement. I imagine that this was the origin of many irregular forms.

Second, I confess I cannot understand this current obsession with redundancy. Why can't people simply enjoy using the language we all speak, and the choices we have in formulating it, without constantly looking for so-called errors. Most of us use redundancy the whole time in spoken language. So what!

@Sharm - not in BrE at least, where 'I've got a car' means 'I possess a car', whereas 'I've just got a car' means 'I've just obtained a car'. Both Oxford and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionaries list 'have got' under 'have', not 'get'. They also say that this use for possession is mainly in BrE.

@dogreed - again in BrE 'I have a rash' means exactly the same as 'I have got a rash' - 'have got' is simply an alternative present tense of 'have' (Shaw - Practical English Usage)

@goofy - spot on, as usual.

@sigurd, you are no doubt right on point one, and I rather regretted having written that, but that is how it is often perceived in the UK. This from Wikipedia -

'In the last few decades, the suffix -ise has become the more common spelling in the UK. Many incorrectly regard -ize as American English, though it has been in use in English since the 16th century'.

But are you sure about 'advertize', which neither Merriam-Webster (US) nor my US spell check recognise?. This is listed in Wikipedia among those verbs that always take 's', whatever side of the Atlantic we live on. That's why I say the rules for z or s in Oxford English (as opposed to standard British English) and American English are probably exactly the same.

Verbs like this listed in Wikipedia include;
advertise, advise, apprise, arise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, excise, exercise, franchise, guise, improvise, incise, merchandise, revise, rise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences

As for preserving the language's identity, that's a bit prescriptivist for my liking.

Look at the preceding 'The problem now was that the car was filling up with water and mud' and then we have ' ... and was pulling it out with the tractor'. This use of past continuous makes it all happen in front of our eyes, and grammatically justifies the past perfect. Two past simples and the story's over before we've started. No drama. I agree there's no other way to write about him wearing big boots, but my point was that this information seems superfluous in the sequence of events version. In the more active (continuous) version however, it adds to our image of the whole scene unrolling in front of us. For me the narrative intent explains this use of tenses quite clearly.

I can't answer your question (well maybe I can) , but I can answer @Remek and @terence. Oxford English uses standard British spelling - colour etc, but American -ize verb endings, so it is different from standard BrE, where we have a choice -ise or -ize.

So I Imagine the z/s rule in Oxford English is exactly the same as American English and @NClose has probably hit it on the head.

Personally I use -ise as a matter of principle, and will continue to use 'merchandise' as both noun and verb. l've read somewhere that -ise is actually on the increase. Probably because just as Americans aren't too keen on British imports such as 'amongst' and 'forwards', we also like to keep our language identity, and -ise is one way we do it.

In British English we very rarely use subjunctive in this kind of sentence, or in fact in any type of sentence, apart from second conditional (I were etc) and even that's on the wane. The standard way of avoiding the subjunctive in this type of sentence in BrE is to use 'should' -

I recommend that you should not take this pill,
I recommend that your wife should not take this pill.

But the use of the indicative is becoming increasingly common in less formal BrE, so personally I'd be happy with the first two. The second two, albeit considered correct in AmE, would be thought of as excessively formal in BrE, and even rather old-fashioned.

So sorry @scyallacat, but what you say is only true your side of the Atlantic. That book @joham quotes is British published and what they say simply reflects standard British grammar, so makes perfect sense to us, as does the slow disappearance of the subjunctive. Few Brits will miss it (if they've even heard of it).

There's more about this at Karen's Linguistics Issues - http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/subjunctive.html#lessformal

(BrE) I think the original and your version are both grammatically correct, but whereas the past simple / past simple version simply describes a sequence of events which is now finished, for me at least, the use of past continuous gives the scene more immediacy and suggests, as jayles says, that the action is still in progress.

It also seems to give more meaning to the relative clause - 'who was wearing enormous rubber boots' - as it gives me an image of someone in enormous boots having jumped into the mud a few seconds earlier and who is now in the process of pulling the car out with the tractor. It's just that bit more dramatic.