[thaumasiotes]

> Moreover, Brits will more often say "I've got" and American will more often say "I have". You can find this in ESL textbooks and by talking with people. For such a fundamental verb, I consider this a big difference.

You shouldn't. There might be differences in frequency of use, but "have" and "have got" are fully synonymous. Even a significant difference in how often one or the other option is chosen would only add up to a tiny difference in the languages. At best, this is a difference on the level of how Americans say "math", but the English say "maths".

> Brits will say "I've lost my keys" using the present perfect to indicate something in the recent past. On the other hand, Americans will says "I just lost my keys" using the past with 'just'. These are grammatically different tenses and I think this constitutes a significant variation between the two. This is often overlooked.

I'm not sure you've really grasped what's happening here. Either option is fine in American English. They mean different things, or more accurately they focus on different aspects of the situation. That means the choice between them is not arbitrary but heavily context-dependent.

My view of "I just lost my keys", with just normally used to mark the immediate past, is that it's a strange example of marking the recent past, because losing an object is something that might have happened in the recent past, but it's not something you're likely to recognize as happening in the recent past. If you lost your keys a minute ago, you probably don't yet know that you've lost them.[1] So while "I just ate" can only refer back maybe an hour or two, "I just lost my keys" could easily refer back a week, if e.g. it's an excuse for why I'm having logistical difficulties.

[1] Note this fully natural American usage of "you've lost your keys".

[d1sxeyes]

> So while "I just ate" can only refer back maybe an hour or two, "I just lost my keys" could easily refer back a week, if e.g. it's an excuse for why I'm having logistical difficulties.

OP has correctly identified a difference, but not the exact nature of it.

In contrast to ‘just’ which can be used to mark recency in both simple past and present perfect (“I just lost my keys” vs “I’ve just lost my keys”), the present perfect does not refer to “the recent past”.

In fact, the difference between present perfect and simple past is not really a tense difference at all, but an aspectual one that marks how the speaker perceives the event. In the simple past, the event is complete, whereas in the present perfect, the event is not, either because the event is ongoing, or because it maintains a specific relevance that means we are not looking from ‘outside’ the event as a completed whole.

The difference that OP has identified is the “default understanding” of British English speakers is normally that an action is complete unless otherwise marked. “I lost my keys” in British English implies that you already have your keys back, or you’ve had new ones made, or that you no longer live in that same flat or whatever. American English does not tend to make the same assumption as strongly, and does not normally require you to use the present perfect except for emphasis.

[notahacker]

> “I lost my keys” in British English implies that you already have your keys back, or you’ve had new ones made, or that you no longer live in that same flat or whatever

As a very standard British English speaker I'm not convinced of this. Sure, "I've lost my keys" normally implies it's an ongoing issue, but "I lost my keys" also can unless the context says otherwise.

I actually did lose my wallet recently, and can assure you when I told my British family "I lost my wallet" their first response was to ask if I'd checked everywhere and cancelled my cards, not ask me about my new wallet!

"I've lost my wallet" might be more emphatic perhaps, but the conclusions we draw from that are dependent on context too (I've also lost my passport on a couple of occasions, but I don't think anybody's inferring I'm still troubled by a lack of passport from that phrasing!)

[d1sxeyes]

That’s quite a specific example with potentially disastrous effects if you’re misunderstood (what if you haven’t cancelled your cards?!), but you’re right, I’m just painting broad strokes as to what is more likely, rather than strict rules. Whatever strict rules you try to apply in linguistics collapse when you look at real people using the language!

The ‘repeated occasions’ is a different use case - I don’t think anyone would infer you’re troubled by a lack of passport, but they might infer that you’re troubled by a tendency to mislay things!

[thaumasiotes]

> In the simple past, the event is complete, whereas in the present perfect, the event is not, either because the event is ongoing, or because it maintains a specific relevance that means we are not looking from ‘outside’ the event as a completed whole.

This is an unusual viewpoint. The perfect aspect is so called for the fact that it indicates completion -- that is the literal meaning of "perfect". The fact that an action completed in the past may continue to be relevant in the present is not generally felt to indicate that such an action wasn't really completed.

> American English [...] does not normally require you to use the present perfect except for emphasis.

This just isn't true. The form in question is required to mark experiential aspect and it's also the only way of describing an action begun in the past that continues through the present ("I've been calling for 15 minutes").

Perfect forms are also required, as you note, when the speaker wishes to focus on a present situation related to an action taken in the past, as opposed to focusing on the past event itself. This is not rare.

And from the other direction, I'm not even aware that perfect forms can be used to provide emphasis.

[d1sxeyes]

> The perfect aspect is so called for the fact that it indicates completion -- that is the literal meaning of "perfect".

Ideally this would be true (and it is generally true in languages which are more concrete about aspect), but that’s not how it’s used in English tense names.

For example, ‘I’ve been playing tennis since lunchtime’ is not complete, but this is a form of the present perfect. Note that there’s also no indication of whether you intend to complete the action or not, and no distinction between actions which will or can be completed and those which won’t or can’t - apart from the latter sounding ungrammatical (such as the construction ‘I’ve been knowing’ - which is common in certain dialects but violates prescriptivist grammar rules).

> This just isn't true. The form in question is required to mark experiential aspect

I think actually you’re mistaken here. In British English, it is normal to say ‘have you seen the new James Bond film?’, while in American English ‘did you see the new James Bond film?’ Is also normal (although both can be used). In most British dialects, the simple past here sounds jarring and ungrammatical.

> it's also the only way of describing an action begun in the past that continues through the present ("I've been calling for 15 minutes").

This was a clumsy statement on my part. By ‘except for emphasis’, I intended to handwave over cases where something other than the action itself is being emphasised by the speaker (ie: duration, as in your example, persistent evidence of recency, such as ‘it’s been raining [and the ground is still wet]’, or some other dialect or ‘non-standard’ use. For example, often eyewitness statements, police reports, etc. unconsciously slip into the present perfect in cases for which there’s no standard grammatical explanation).