"Murderess." "Primitive totalitarian." "Three times over - for what right has /she/ to say that /we/ can't exist . Crypto-criminal mind!"
It's an excerpt from the book "Time Enough for Love", by Robert A. Heinlein.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441810764/qid=1119563579/sr=1-1/ref=sr 1 1/103-8342050-6367013?v=glance&s=books
shortened:
http://snipurl.com/fskqYou can get the context here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0441810764/103-8342050-6367013?%5Fencoding=UTF8&resultsPage=2&keywords=%22what%20right%20has%20she%22&v=search-insideshortened:
http://snipurl.com/fskrI can't, 'cause I'm not registered and don't mean to at present.
We've already discussed about the limited usage of "to have" as an auxiliary without "got"; here's a wonderful contribution by Adrian Bailey, for example:
shortened:
http://snipurl.com/fsksHow can the sentence from Heinlein's book be accounted for, in light of what I've gathered on the matter? I've a hunch that it's because "right" is an abstract noun (1), but I don't know whether that sentence could still be said or written nowadays.
(1) It seems to me that got-less forms of the auxiliary "to have" are still common when the object is an abstract noun: "I haven't time", "I haven't the energy to...", "I haven't the foggiest idea" etc.
Ciao, FB
"Is this Miss Prism a female of repellent aspect, remotely connected with education?" "She is the most cultivated of ladies, and the very picture of respectability" "It is obviously the same person". ("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde)